Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:49:31 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.
>
>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.
>
>But thanks again for what was clearly a challenging and thought provoking post.
>
>-g
Well, as I put in parentheses, there were many many more matches between
computers involved, but the point was to show that I don't see how having a
computer beat other computers, however many, will prove its strength against
GMs. GMs have a few more skills under the belt than tactics and an eval
function, and the only way you'll ever find out how a computer will do against
one is not by beating every other computer in existence, nor by beating the crap
out of 2300 players who do not have those skills, but by playing those very GMs.
Albert Silver
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.