Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:52:19 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2000 at 05:46:58, Graham Laight wrote:
>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
I haven't "avoided" anything. Chris's data has a _huge_ error margin. One
program had one game for its "tpr" calculation. WIth an error of +/- 400 or
more.
We are getting real data from Rebel and the Israel games... I have time to
wait, rather than jumping the gun... For every program close to its SSDF
rating we will see one _way_ below. What is the conclusion? That the average
is way high on the SSDF, but just wait for time to give good numbers...
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.