Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:49:08 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 12:19:00, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 07, 2000 at 12:40:09, Albert Silver wrote: > >>What exactly was done about "getting it right" as you say? To my knowledge >>nothing. > >I don't really know, but I assume that they have kept learning, and kept on >applying what they have learned, over the years. > >>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 > >I have to admit that this is a brilliantly funny post. Nice one! Thanks. > >However, IMHO, (which is, as you know, VERY humble), it is stronger in humour >than it is in substance. > >If it is true that SSDF ratings for a computer (or program) are done on the >basis of playing just one other computer, then without hesitation I will throw >my towell in and switch to the other side of this debate. > the ratings are computed by _only_ using computer vs computer games. Different computers, different programs, _no_ humans. Which is why their ratings have nothing to do with FIDE ratings, other than the fact that they use the numbers 0-9. They don't compute the ratings using the Elo formula. They don't have any human ratings in the group... >I assume that, in reality, the ratings are done by playing a variety of other >computers. Furthermore, postings by SSDF members (and notes on the SSDF web >site) imply that periodically the SSDF will check that the ratings are sensible >in terms of Swedish Elo and other Elo ratings. They have stated clearly that they did something 8 years ago to adjust the ratings somehow, but nothing since. 8 years without a human vs computer game of any kind... which explains why SSDF and FIDE ratings have no conversion formula. > >But thanks again for what was clearly a challenging and thought provoking post. > >-g
This page took 0.01 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.