Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 04:44:08 08/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2000 at 20:06:53, Derrick Wilson wrote: >On August 04, 2000 at 18:51:13, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>Just got it: >> >> THE SSDF RATING LIST 2000-08-04 74012 games played by 209 computers >> Rating + - Games Won Oppo >> ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- >> 1 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 28 -27 673 67% 2504 >> 2 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2601 25 -24 864 67% 2478 >> 3 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2573 30 -29 569 63% 2481 >> 4 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2553 31 -30 557 62% 2467 >> 5 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2549 29 -28 613 62% 2463 >> 6 Goliath Light 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2534 48 -48 210 51% 2528 >> 7 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2533 31 -31 519 60% 2460 >> 8 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2526 29 -28 598 58% 2467 >> 9 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2516 57 -55 159 58% 2456 >> 10 Nimzo 99 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2501 29 -29 581 54% 2475 >> 11 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2499 27 -27 651 51% 2496 >> 12 Fritz 5.32 64MB P200 MMX 2477 20 -20 1208 57% 2429 >> 12 Hiarcs 7.32 64MB P200 MMX 2477 25 -24 815 60% 2404 >> 14 Chessmaster 6000 64MB P200 MMX 2473 61 -53 184 76% 2278 >> 15 MChess Pro 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2470 34 -35 418 44% 2511 >> 16 Fritz 5.0 PB29% 67MB P200 MMX 2459 23 -22 1005 66% 2342 >> 17 Hiarcs 7.0 64MB P200 MMX 2458 21 -21 1106 55% 2420 >> 18 Nimzo 99 64MB P200 MMX 2447 23 -23 885 51% 2439 >> 19 Junior 5.0 64MB P200 MMX 2433 22 -22 1010 51% 2427 >> 20 Nimzo 98 58MB P200 MMX 2423 22 -22 1038 58% 2367 >> 21 Rebel 9.0 47MB P200 MMX 2419 24 -23 900 61% 2340 >> 22 Hiarcs 6.0 49MB P200 MMX 2417 24 -24 829 56% 2373 >> 23 Rebel 8.0 51MB P200 MMX 2409 23 -23 887 50% 2408 >> 24 MChess Pro 6.0 41MB P200 MMX 2407 26 -25 749 54% 2378 >> 25 Shredder 2.0 58MB P200 MMX 2396 21 -21 1054 48% 2408 >> 26 MChess Pro 7.1 46MB P200 MMX 2394 22 -22 1042 53% 2371 >> 27 Genius 5.0 DOS 46MB P200 MMX 2393 21 -21 1093 52% 2378 >> 28 MChess Pro 8.0 64MB P200 MMX 2390 27 -27 681 53% 2366 >> 29 Chess Tiger 11.8 Pentium 90 MHz 2387 45 -45 242 52% 2375 >> 30 Gandalf 3.0 64MB P200 MMX 2364 41 -40 307 59% 2296 >> 31 Kallisto II 64MB P200 MMX 2342 35 -35 403 52% 2327 >> 32 Rebel 9.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2334 23 -23 890 47% 2356 >> 33 Hiarcs 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2332 18 -18 1437 51% 2328 >> 34 Genius 5.0 DOS Pentium 90 MHz 2329 18 -18 1558 47% 2348 >> 35 MChess Pro 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2309 17 -17 1726 45% 2343 >> 36 Nimzo 3.5 Pentium 90 MHz 2293 22 -22 998 46% 2322 >> 37 Chessmaster 5000 Pentium 90 MHz 2287 49 -45 240 67% 2162 >> 37 Junior 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2287 22 -22 1035 42% 2341 >> 39 Shredder 1.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2282 59 -58 145 53% 2262 >> 40 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2135 >> 41 CometA90 64MB P200 MMX 2251 37 -39 358 36% 2351 >> 42 Fritz 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2234 40 -39 324 60% 2163 >> 43 WChess 1.06 Pentium 90 MHz 2230 20 -20 1222 39% 2308 >> 44 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2198 45 -44 248 55% 2161 >> 45 Berlin Pro 68 020 24 MHz 2125 24 -24 850 58% 2071 >> 45 Meph RISC 2 1 MB 2125 62 -66 125 39% 2205 >> 47 Mephisto Montreux ARM 14 MHz 512K 2099 29 -28 689 73% 1930 >> 48 Atlanta SH7000 20 MHz 2093 31 -29 580 67% 1967 >> 49 Sapphire II 2013 35 -33 444 63% 1917 >> 50 Milano Pro SH7000 20 MHz 1974 33 -32 469 61% 1895 >> >> >> >> 6 Goliath Light 128MB K6-2 450 MHz, 2534 >>Junior6 K6450 12-28 Ch.Ti12 K6450 9-13 Nimz732 K6450 3.5-4.5 >>Hiar732 K6450 15-14 Nimzo99 K6450 26.5-13.5 Craf17.07 K62 23-17 >>MCP8 K6-2 450 15.5-11.5 MCP 6 P200MMX 2.5-1.5 >> >> 9 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz, 2516 >>Hiar732 K6450 6-10 Nimzo99 K6450 10-4 Fritz532 P200 10.5-7.5 >>Hiarcs7 P200X 22.5-15.5 Junior5 P200X 18.5-13.5 190 P200MMX 23.5-13.5 >>MCP 6 P200MMX 2-2 >> >> 15 MChess Pro 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz, 2470 >>Fritz6 K6-450 9-35 Junior6 K6450 15-25 204 K6-450 3.5-4.5 >>Nimz732 K6450 19-25 Goliath K6450 11.5-15.5 Hiar732 K6450 1-4 >>Junior5 K6450 15.5-24.5 Nimzo99 K6450 20.5-21.5 Craf17.07 K62 7-15 >>Fritz532 P200 17.5-28.5 Hiarcs7 P200X 21-19 Junior5 P200X 16.5-3.5 >>193 P200MMX 27.5-12.5 >> >> >> >> >>The SSDF rating list provides information about >>the relative strength of chess programs, when >>tested in the way SSDF does, but does not >>necessarily say which ELO-rating a certain program >>would achieve after having played hundreds of >>tournament games against human players. >> >>How good or bad the individual correlation >>between SSDF- and ELO-ratings is, will most >>likely never be established. So many games against >>humans will never be played. >> >>Apart from establishing relative ratings, we have had >>the ambition that the general level of the list >>would be fairly realistic, compared to human ratings. >>From our start in 1984 we have used tournament games >>against Swedish chess players to calibrate the list. >>At some points we have discarded older games, believing >>that human chess players with time have become better >>to exploit the weaknesses of chess programs. >> >>Until the latest rating list the level of the list has >>been unchanged from summer 1991, and was based on 337 >>tournament games against Swedish players between 1987 and >>1991. Regrettably it has not been possible for us to >>play any more games for many years now. >> >>For some time we had the general impression that >>the level of the list was rather OK. But during the >>latest years it has become more and more obvious that >>the best programs on the latest hardware don't >>get as high ELO-ratings as our list could be interpreted >>to predict. >> >>If this is due to differences between Swedish- and ELO- >>ratings, to the "human learning effect", to some kind of >>"spreading effect" in a computer-computer list or a com- >>bination of these and perhaps other factors, we don't know. >> >>It is difficult to find a perfect solution, but we have >>chosen to correlate the level of the list to the results >>of tournament games between computers and ELO-rated >>humans, played during the latest years. For us it has >>been very convenient to use Chris Carsons compilation >>of such games. Calculations based on these games indicate >>that the level of the list is about 100 points too high. >>So from now on we have lowered the list with 100 points! >> >>Our hope is that the SSDF-ratings of the top entrants as >>a group now are better correlated with ELO-ratings. If >>the rating-inflation to a large part is due to >>a "spreading-effect", there is now a certain possibility >>that the older and weaker entrants of the list would play >>better against humans than their SSDF-ratings could indi- >>cate. But having to choose, we prefer to secure that the >>top programs have as correct ratings as possible. >> >>It is interesting to see how well chess programs play against >>each other, but it's even more fascinating to see what they >>can achieve against humans! I hope that more games against >>strong humans will be played in the future, and that >>Chris Carson will continue to collect these games, so that >>the level of the SSDF list can be more securely established. >> >>Compared to the latest rating list in early April we now >>have 1953 more tournament games and three new entrants. >>Marty Hirschs MChess Pro 8.0 has been replayed on K6-2 450 MHz. >>After 418 games it has 2470, which is 80 points more than >>on Pentium MMX 200 MHz. The difference between these two >>hardwares has in average been 79 points, so the result >>is as expected. >> >>Completely new on the list is Michael Borgstädts >>Goliath Light K6-2 450 MHz. It is played under the Fritz >>surface using the opening book general.ctg from Fritz 6. >>It has got a rating of 2534, which gives it a sixth >>place on the list! >> >>SOS K6-2 450 MHz is written by Rudolf Huber and is also >>played with the opening book of Fritz 6. After 159 games >>it has 2516 and a ninth place! >> >>Crafty 17.07 K6-2 has lost 24 points compared to the >>latest list and Nimzo 99 K6-2 has 22 points less. >>Fritz 6 K6-2 has gone up 10 points and Junior 6 K6-2 >>has increased 12 points. >> >>Next official list will be made in September or >>October. >> >>Thoralf Karlsson > > > I don't believe this list for a second!! Consider this, on a pent 200 the list >states that hiarcs6 is only 2417, yet the same program on that hardware defeated >2495 dean hergott in a six game match!! This was explained in Karlsson's post. I will repeat the relavant paragraph: "Our hope is that the SSDF-ratings of the top entrants as a group now are better correlated with ELO-ratings. If the rating-inflation to a large part is due to a "spreading-effect", there is now a certain possibility that the older and weaker entrants of the list would play better against humans than their SSDF-ratings could indi- cate. But having to choose, we prefer to secure that the top programs have as correct ratings as possible."
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.