Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:46:58 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 21:51:01, James Robertson wrote:
{snip}
>I think that most of the older lower rated results _are_ accurate because the
>list was calibrated using those results. But the results of the newer programs
>whose ratings were _not_ calibrated against human lists show a remarkable
>difference between their actual performances. Fritz is just the grossest example
>of this, exhibiting a 232 point difference between its performance against
>computers and its performance against humans.
Unless Fritz's TPR rating is based on a larger scale test than the others, you
can't really say this.
I wouldn't expect most TPRs to closely match a player's real rating. The real
surprise is that, after 8+ years since the "official" calibrations, so many of
the TPRs are quite close to the SSDF rating - some of the even higher, indeed.
If I were a lawyer out to prove that the SSDF ratings were inflated, I wouldn't
draw attention to the statistics which Chris has put forward. I would
strenuously avoid posting on this thread (like Bob has done! :-) ).
-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.