Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 17:45:38 09/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2000 at 20:12:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 18, 2000 at 19:00:49, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On September 18, 2000 at 17:42:06, odell hall wrote: >> >>>Hello CCC >>> >>> >>> How many think the new SSDF List is relatively Accurate? Personally I commend >>>SSDF for doing a outstanding Job, Based on my observations of the grandmaster >>>Challenge and other 40/2 events, I think the list is very reliable. >>>I believe it is safe to say that any top program running on a K62-450 is 2500 >>>elo, or very near. I think that now that the rating has been significantly >>>lowered, this list will be taken far more seriously in determining Fide rating >>>for Modern Programs. I am curious if some skeptics of the List in the Past, >>>consider the list still to high, or Just about right? Opinions Welcome >> >> >>I guess the adjustement was justified for the top programs on recent hardware, >>but for the older programs on slow hardware the change has been really unfair. >> >>I'm talking about the dedicated chess computer around 1900-2200 elo. Now they >>are rated 1800-2100 elo, which is probably not fair at all. >> >>It would have been better to do the change differently. Maybe by adding the >>games against human players in the SSDF database, giving them a higher weight >>than the comp-comp games, then recompute all the ratings based on this. >> >>I don't know if it is the best way, but just decreasing the whole list by 100 >>elo points is not exactly a scientific method. >> >>The good thing is that it will stop the main critisism against the SSDF list, I >>mean people saying that the computers were overrated. >> >>I'm a strong supporter of the SSDF list. This is why I believe I can tell >>franckly my opinion about this change. :) > >It makes no difference what number they add or drop from the list. > >An ELO value prediction is purely based on differences. > >(x + 1000) - (y + 1000) is identical to (x-y). > >The adjustment has no impact whatsoever on the figures. If it makes some people >happy, it just means that they had no idea what the figures meant in the first >place. > >In any case, I would be rather surprised if the new numbers fit human players >better unless the adjustment was based upon a large collection of real data. If >it had been based on a large collection of real data, that would have been a >pretty exciting experiment, and I think we would have heard about it. > >Hence, my conclusion is that the change was made solely to hush the wild beasts >of the forest who feared the big and mighty numbers but will be calmed by the >melodious tones of n-100 music. I thought the adjustment was made to make the numbers across pools (computers and humans) more comparable (and whether they are more comparable is debatable). Obviously, adding or deleting a constant doesn't change the predictive value within a pool. Roger
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.