Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:08:09 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 16:41:56, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 24, 2000 at 16:09:20, Harald Faber wrote: > >>DB 97 does only have 6 games and the ELO so far has nothing to do with SSDF-ELO. >>When will all of you guys start to keep that in mind? >>What about burning this equation in the miror: >> >> >>SSDF-ELO <> FIDE-ELO >> >> >>It is quite disappointing for me to see that still several people assume >>SSDF-ELO = FIDE-ELO. > >I do not recall this statement in my post. I did believe the relationship >some time ago, but changed my opinon as more data was revealed. > >I think the SSDF is looking into adjustments to make the two >rating systems more comparable, however, I am not sure it is >really a priority for them. > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson An adjustment is absolutely impossible. The only way to "adjust" the SSDF list is to take all the programs and play them in many human events, which would give each program a valid FIDE rating. But trying to take some programs and compute a FIDE rating, and then using SSDF numbers to try to figure out how far _all_ programs should be adjusted is simply bad statistics... May as well have a 100*random() tossed into _that_ formula... ratings between computers and computers, and between computers and humans don't seem to have a lot in common...
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.