Author: Chessfun
Date: 18:08:05 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 09:47:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 10, 2000 at 09:03:52, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On November 09, 2000 at 12:47:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>The difference is that the SSDF plays LONG tournaments which are more reliable >>>than the short WMCCC for example. >>> >> >>Sorry but I do not see any proper tournament in SSDF, only long mathces (20 or >>40 games). There are several weak points in SSDF testing, a major one is that >>there is no recipe or formula to give opponents to the new entries (as in a >>tournament, be it short or long). I do not insist on the these weak points >>because I do not mean to be discouraging or overly critic to SSDF, I only want >>to point that your "reliability" argument in favor of SSDF is not fully >>convincing. >> >>> >>>So there is a difference, but it does not favor the short tournaments in my >>>opinion. >>> >> >>Again, I respect your opinion, and I think you will have far more "followers" >>than me. >> >>> >>>Then you should value more the SSDF games than the tournament games. >>> >> >>OK, more problems with SSDF: >>-several (most?) games are not public. If a tester is too lazy to send a pgn >>score, she/he may be too lazy to even play the games. >>-operator mistakes have been found, and most likely there are more mistakes. >>-It is too easy for a tester to cheat (for example, playing 22 games and then >>removing two losses for its favorite program, reporting a 20-game match). I >>believe almost all the testers are honest. >>-SSDF rating list gives very wide margins of error, which actually prevent >>anybody from knowing certainly which is "best". >>-As I have said before, the selection of opponents is quite arbitrary. Harald >>Faber has said that he can make any top program number one by correctly choosing >>the opponents, and I believe him. >> >>> >>>The author will not be with you in your home and help YOUR copy of the program >>>to play better. >>> >> >>Very true! I might be influenced by the simple fact that I do not have a >>computer, and obviously I also do not have any chess program either. >> >>> >>>Generally, you know, the author is not provided in the program's >>>package. >>> >> >>And I personally would not like to get one (unless Katja Riemann or Claudia >>Schiffer write a chess engine, even if it plays weak chess). >> >>> >>>If you want the best program you can run on YOUR computer, the SSDF tells you >>>much better than tournament games. >>> >> >>I have pointed several problems with SSDF testing, but I do not want to insist >>on them (I am not against SSDF or against private testing at all). >>I only hope that by now it is clear where I am standing, what the differences >>between your position and mine are, and that the readers from this thread are at >>least amused. > >I agree with you about problems with the ssdf results but inspite of it I trust >more the ssdf than results of short tournaments because there are also results >of more testers like Chessfun and Enrique that suggest that fritz6a is very >strong and it encourages me to trust the ssdf results. > >I may believe less to the ssdf if I see different results in public games of >Chessfun and Enrique. > >Uri Thank you Uri ! IMO the SSDF is the most reliable and reasonable source we have available to tell how strong an engine is. Naturally with any rating list or tourney questions can develop as to methodology or conditions for such games. I look at my own results and find little difference in what I consider to be the strongest engines and the SSDF ratings. IMHO there is no doubt currently that Fritz 6a (6) is the strongest. This may change IMO with Tiger 13.0 but I think that will depend overall on how Tiger competes against other programs notably Junior. In my own games to date Tiger has little trouble with Fritz 6, though naturally I have seen my friend Chris Taylors results and await the SSDF where many more than either my own games or Chris Taylors games will be played. Again upon seeing that next SSDF list I will believe the results. I am only happy to now have an engine which will challenge Fritz's domination of my own tourneys. Though I'm still eager to see a new Fritz 7 on single cpu. Sarah.
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.