Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SSDF and the programmers (to Ed and Bob and anyone)

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 11:03:57 03/17/98

Go up one level in this thread



On March 17, 1998 at 13:06:04, Ed Schröder wrote:

>As said, remove the double games.
>Result, clean engine-engine fights.
>That's what we want isn't it?

If program A is equal to program B, and neither use learning, they
should have the same SSDF rating, sure.

The SSDF rating should reflect how the programs would do against the
general community of players.  It's debatable whether both programs
would do the same against the general pool of players, since they are
only tested against computers, but let's say for sake of argument that
they would.

Now assume that learning is added to A.  It would do better against the
general pool of players, right?  Then why shouldn't its rating be
higher.

If anything, blame the programs that don't have learning, for being such
incredible suckers by allowing repeated games.  They are the ones
screwing up the rating list.

Imagine thwo humans, A and B, both the same strength.  But there is a
problem.  Playing black, A lost a game to B in his favorite Sicilian
Defense, long ago.  This has consumed and enraged him, so now whenever
he plays black against B (and he plays B often, they belong to the same
club), he always plays the Sicilian, if he can, and he always loses.  B
has figured this out, and now always plays 1. e4 against A, and he
always wins.

Does B have a moral obligation to play something other than 1. e4 now
and again against A?  Of course not.  He can play 1. e4 until they both
die of old age.

Does this screw up the rating pool?  Of course.  A has an artificially
low rating against anyone other than B, and B has an artificially high
rating against anyone other than A.

Who is to blame for this situation?  Player A is.  Certainly not player
B.

The SSDF list should be a ranking of a pool of chess players, so let the
players play the best chess they can, and if some of the players are
vulnerable to silly tricks, that is bad for *everyone*, but it is the
fault of those players, not those who set traps that the less complete
players fall into ad nauseum.

bruce



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.