Author: Chris Carson
Date: 10:46:52 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 13:23:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 07, 2000 at 10:13:32, Chris Carson 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. >>>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. >>> >>>> >>>>>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 >>> >> >>Albert, >> >>I do respect you, you add a lot to this discussion. :) >> >>I also respect IM Kaufman. IM Kaufman is an expert on chess >>and and expert on computer chess. Here is what he says about >>this: >> >>"To fully appreciate just how strong Hiarcs 7 is, consider that its Swedish >>rating of 2567 was earned on hardware (200 MHz MMX) markedly inferior to the >>latest models (450-500 MHz). Moreover, the Swedish ratings are particularly >>severe, almost certainly more conservative than FIDE ratings and far below USCF >>ratings. These ratings are based on 40/2 games with other computers, with the >>overall level of the list based on games with human competition some years ago. >>Although I suspect that the level of the top computers may be a bit overstated >>now due to failure to recalibrate the list based on today's GM level computers, >>this should be offset by the severity of Swedish ratings in the past, so my >>guess is that the 2567 rating at 200 MHz would hold up in FIDE competition >>today, which would imply a FIDE rating over 2600 on today's fast machines. In >>other words, HIARCS 7 plays tournament chess on a par with the top five players >>in the U.S." >> >>Source: http://www.icdchess.com/wccr/software/Hiarcs7/lk.html >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson >> > > >I know Larry well, and if I were sitting across the table from him and he >made that statement, I would still say "baloney". And explain why. It is >just simply wrong, and for that one opinion I can introduce you to 20 GM/IM >players that will _strongly_ disagree. And many of these players are intimately >familiar with computers. Roman has become quite educated on computer chess >ideas. Others like Joel Benjamin don't need to be introduced... > >One voice in the crowd isn't convincing, IMHO. > Thats a good point. I agree. I take your opinion very seriously. You do provide good arguments with facts to hang your hat on. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson > > > > >>>> >>>>-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.