Author: ShaktiFire
Date: 16:13:20 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 15:06:44, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >Both you and ShaktiFire are right in that respect. There was a link to human >strenght. > >My point is that because of the isolation of a human player pool the ratings >have gone their own way. IMO a rating of 600 is as okay as a rating of say 5200. >Only the same algorithms for calculationg the strenghts are used. > >Reversed it's like trying to assign an accurate rating to 19th century players. >You can compare their relative strenghts, but can not match them corrctly >anymore. > >You both are right if the SSDF ratings give way to believes that computer >programs are Elo 2600 or 2700 compared to other humans, and .... well, that >might well be the case .....:) > >Jeroen ;-} Jeroen, thank you for your post. I understand what u mean... and I agree,,, perhaps , since the pools are completely different with no "cross pollination whatsoever"... it is useless to compare apples and oranges... but still perhaps SSDF should explicitly state that their ratings mean nothing in relationship to FIDE. I feel they don't want to do this yet.... they probably want to keep a "credibility" with FIDE...but certainly at this point...SSDF, you read these posts, it is time to make a statement about your ratings. You can't play it both ways. ... where on the fence are you... the computers are 2700++ ... really?
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.