Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:32:45 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 17:56:08, James T. Walker wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 16:14:33, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 11:20:20, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2001 at 00:01:19, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On June 12, 2001 at 22:50:01, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 20:54:16, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 18:41:58, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 14:48:10, Thoralf Karlsson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THE SSDF RATING LIST 2001-06-11 79042 games played by 219 computers >>>>>>>> Rating + - Games Won Oppo >>>>>>>> ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- >>>>>>>> 1 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2653 29 -28 647 64% 2551 >>>>>>>> 2 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2650 43 -40 302 67% 2528 >>>>>>>> 3 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2632 43 -40 308 67% 2508 >>>>>>>> 4 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 23 -23 968 64% 2520 >>>>>>>> 5 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2596 20 -20 1230 62% 2509 >>>>>>>> 6 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2576 26 -26 733 61% 2499 >>>>>>>> 7 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2551 25 -25 804 58% 2496 >>>>>>>> 8 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2550 24 -23 897 58% 2491 >>>>>>>> 9 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2542 28 -28 612 54% 2511 >>>>>>>> 10 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2534 25 -25 790 58% 2478 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Congratulations to Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist (and the ChessBase team). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Deep Fritz is definitely a very tough client. You cannot lead the SSDF list by >>>>>>>accident, and leading it for so many years in a row is probably the best >>>>>>>achievement of a chess program of all times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you want to sum up the history of chess programs for microcomputers, I think >>>>>>>you just need to remember 3 names: >>>>>>>* Richard Lang >>>>>>>* Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>> >>>>>>The roarng absence of the name Christophe, appears of course, in the signature >>>>>>of the post. >>>>>>But I have a little question. Does Deep Fritz have any advantage in the testing >>>>>>e.g. the fact that it already stood at the top, long before the recent GT even >>>>>>arrived on the scene, and so may have had an advantageous starting point? >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>Hello Stuart, >>>>>I believe that is a valid question. I would like to know the answer. I would >>>>>like to know if the SSDF "Zeros out" the book learning of say Deep Fritz before >>>>>starting a match with Gambit Tiger when Gambit Tiger is brand new? I still >>>>>think the SSDF list is quesionable because of the differences in opponents each >>>>>program has to face. I'm sure it's better than nothing but I sure wouldn't like >>>>>to hang my hat on a 3 point difference in SSDF ratings (or even 20 points for >>>>>that matter). >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't question the reliability of the list. >>>> >>>>It is the most reliable tool that we have to evaluate the chess programs. The >>>>difference in the opponents each program has to face does not matter from a >>>>mathematical point of view. >>>> >>>>Year after year we can see that the list is reliable. Almost all objections get >>>>refuted, little by little. Of course it is not absolutely perfect, but I think >>>>it's damn good. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Hello Christophe, >>>I think the thread got sidetracked but I disagree with your assessment of the >>>SSDF list. I agree it's not perfect and it's pretty good but.... I think its >>>too easy to make one program come out on top by selecting the number of games >>>played vs certain opponents. If you could play only one opponent and get a true >>>rating then there would be no problem. We all know this is not the case. Some >>>programs do better against certain opponents and worse vs others. So if you >>>play more games vs the opponent you do best against it will inflate your rating. >>> Of course the opposite is true. So if Program "A" plays its favorite opponent >>>while program "B" plays it "nemesis" more games then naturally program "A" will >>>look better even though they may be equal or even the opposite is true. This >>>becomes very critical when the difference in rating is only a few points in >>>reality. I'm not saying the SSDF does this on purpose but I'm sure they are >>>doing nothing to compensate for this possibility. In my opinion the best way to >>>do the SSDF list would be to make all top programs play an equal number of games >>>against the same opponents. That way the top programs would all play the same >>>number of games against the same opponents and the list would look like this: >>> >>>Name Rating Number of games >>>Program A 2600 400 >>>Program B 2590 400 >>>Program C 2580 400 >> >> >> >>I cannot think of any real evidence that such a phenomenon exist. Can you >>mention amongst the top programs which program gets killed by what other >>program? >> >>Has someone statistical evidence of this? >> >>But anyway, even if all program meet each other, I know some people will say >>that there is another way to bias the results: by letting a given program to >>enter or not to enter the list you have an influence on the programs it is >>supposed to kill. >> >>It's a neverending story. >> >> >> >> Christophe > > >Hello Christophe, >You don't have to get killed or be a killer to change the rating by a few >points. The first program that comes to mind is ChessMaster. I believe that >playing a "Learning" program vs a non-learning program will add rating points to >the learning program with more and more games played between them. If this is >not the case then you could just play 500 games vs any opponent you chose and >your rating would be just as accurate. In any case this "bias" could be avoided >with a little planning. >Jim Ok, and what is wrong now, that favours program x or y? Bertil
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.