Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 23:49:18 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 18:32:45, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 I doubt that the list favours a program. But I think your idea is to play 40 games in a match, so I wonder why not play exactly 40 games. Sometimes you play more, sometimes you play less. I don't think it's a big problem playing 39 or 42 games. But it should be no problem playing the same number. Why I would prefer this is the statistics. The best thing for getting a good statistics for ratings would be playing a tournament like Cadaques: every program against each other the same number of games. Regards, Martin
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.