Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 10:21:26 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 12:40:09, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 07, 2000 at 10:05:51, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 07, 2000 at 08:42:30, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 06, 2000 at 19:47:10, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>>>On January 06, 2000 at 17:20:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 06, 2000 at 10:43:29, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 06, 2000 at 10:23:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It is more than anecdotal. There is no contrary evidence at all, so far, other >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't agree - I think that the SSDF list represents "evidence", because they >>>>>>have long experience of every level of play the computers have reached since >>>>>>1984 or 1985. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What does the SSDF rating list have to do with whether a computer is at a GM >>>>>level or not? You could add or subtract 400 points from every rating on their >>>>>list, and things would still be just as valid according to the Elo formula. >>>>>The 'spread' between two programs on the SSDF list is correct. The absolute >>>>>value of the ratings are over-inflated. Or do you believe that a computer is >>>>>really playing at 2700 and is in the top 10 in the world? >>>>> >>>>>I don't... >>>> >>>>If the 'spread' is correct, then the absolute values must also be right - >>>>because the SSDF list is known to correlate well with FIDE ratings UP TO A >>>>CERTAIN LEVEL (though it is admitted to be 20-30 points too high). >>> >>>Oh? What level? Which program correlates to any FIDE rating? For that matter >>>which program has a FIDE rating to correlate to, or which human has a SSDF >>>rating to compare to his FIDE rating? The last time they correlated to human >>>ratings as far as I know was back in 1990 or so, when the Novag Par Excellence >>>was rated 1850 in France after testing it in 40 games at 40/2 against human >>>players and the SSDF had it at 1834 (something like that), and the Fidelity Mach >>>III was rated at 2036 in France (same conditions) and the SSDF had it at 1993. >> >>Thanks for this information, which I regard as supportive, because it shows that >>the SSDF had rated the computers quite accurately! >> >>Since then, they've had years of extra experience to help them grapple with the >>problems of "getting it right". > >What exactly was done about "getting it right" as you say? To my knowledge >nothing. > > >> >>>Of course, the SSDF also organized games against humans back then and included >>>these in the rating list. Still, there weren't any FIDE ratings below 2200 then >>>either. >>>You also mention that it was ADMITTED to be 20-30 points over-rated. Admitted >>>implies that someone is in possession of incontrovertible information. I don't >>>think the SSDF possesses ANY information to make such a statement. >>> >>>> >>>>I think that you are saying that, relative to the FIDE ratings, the spread is >>>>too great at the high end. >>>> >>>>If it is true that the SSDF ratings correlate well with the FIDE ratings up to, >>>>say, 2400 points (which probably is true), then what I think you are telling me >>>>is that, for those computers above 2400 on the SSDF list, the gap between them >>>>is too big, and that therefore the higher you get on the SSDF list, the more >>>>overinflated the scores are, relative to human players. >>>> >>>>>>>than 'opinion polls'. Let's watch the Rebel games. That will be a reasonable >>>>>>>guage... >>>>>> >>>>>>Certainly. Even better if the SSDF take up Ed's offer to test Rebel Century. >>>>>> >>>>>>-g >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That doesn't help a bit for the SSDF rating numbers. Their rating pool of >>>>>players has nothing whatsoever to do with FIDE, so the ratings can't be compared >>>>>at all. If they wanted, they could take rebel-10's eventual TPR as a real FIDE >>>>>rating, then enter Rebel into the SSDF testing cycle, and when it finishes, >>>>>reduce everyone's rating by X so that rebel's SSDF rating matches its TPR rating >>>> >>>>Agreed. >>> >>>I disagree. You will only be prolonging the problem and will eventually get back >>>to the situation we have now. >> >>Hence we have to try to make the best of what information we do have. >> >>>> >>>>>for the GM challenge matches. I think that X will be 200 points or more, IMHO. >>>> >>>>In my opinion, which is equally humble (of course!), Tiger's FIDE rating is >>>>probably about 2660 - I don't think that this is quite in the top 10. >>> >>>On what is your opinion based? My opinion is different but not based on any >>>scientific knowledge or testing. Merely my observation of it's play, and what it >>>knows and doesn't. If it's playing 2660, it's the most ignorant 2660 I ever saw. >>> >>> Albert Silver >>> >> >>2666 = 2696 (SSDF rating) - 30 (to convert from SSDF to FIDE scale) > >There is no conversion scale. I readily accept that the Fidelity Par Excellence >is 1835 as this was backed up by testing against human players, but the rest is >pure extrapolation. Here is how Chess Tiger's 2696 (-30 to get the FIDE rating >of course) was achieved (very roughly as there were more computers involved but >the system is the same): > >Mephisto MM4 beat the Par Excellence (1835) 12.5-7.5 and was thus rated 1904. >Mephisto Roma 68000 beat the MM4 (1904) 19-9 and was thus rated 1970. >Fidelity Mach III beat the Roma 68000 (1970) 139.5-96.5 and was thus rated 1993. >Mephisto Lyon 68020 beat the Mach III (1993) 19-8 and was thus rated 2150. >Fritz 3 on a 486/66 beat the Lyon (2150) 13-7 and was thus rated 2257. >Genius 2.0 on a 486/66 beat Fritz3 (2257) 12-9 and was thus rated 2336. >Hiarcs 4 on a P90 beat Genius 2.0 (2336) 11-9 and was thus rated 2392. > >[Note that no humans have anything to do with this] > >Rebel 8.0 on a P90 beat Hiarcs 4 (2392) 11.5-8.5 and was thus rated 2438. >Mchess Pro 8.0 on a P200MMX beat Rebel 8.0 (2438) 12-8 and was thus rated 2492. >Junior 5 on a P200MMX beat MCPro 8.0 (2492) 14.5-9.5 and was thus rated 2542. >Chess Tiger 12 on a K6-2/450 beat Junior 5 (2542) 31.5-14.5 and was thus rated >2696. > >Conclusion: > >We can now confidently say Chess Tiger 12 is about 2666 FIDE (minus the 30 >extraneous points so kindly admitted by the SSDF), which is a little stronger >than Victor Korchnoi, Judit Polgar, Yasser Seirawan, and World FIDE champion >Alexander Khalifman, and just a few points shy of Peter Svidler, Nigel Short, >Boris Gelfand and Anatoly Karpov, BECAUSE: > >it beat Junior 5 which beat Mchess Pro 8 which beat Rebel 8.0 which beat Hiarcs >4.0 which beat Genius 2.0 which beat Fritz 3 which beat the Mephisto Lyon 68020 >which beat the Fidelity Mach III which beat the Mephisto Roma 68000 which beat >the mephisto MM4 which beat the Fidelity Par Excellence which was rated 1835 >back in 1989! > >Yes!!!! >I see it now! >It is all so clear! >Enlightenment!!!!! > > Albert Silver > > >Hi! Very good post! I play in a chessclub with players from 1200 to 2500 We still basically use the same rating-system. 1400 beats 1200, 1600 beats 1400, 1800 beats 1600 and so on. If you have a rating is it a gift from God or what? Regards Bertil > > >> >>If Tiger is ignorant, then so was DB in 4 of the 6 games it played against GK in >>'97 - but it still achieved an MPR of around 2900. Maybe ignorance is not so bad >>in a computer. >> >>-g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.