Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:26:48 04/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2002 at 16:22:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 09, 2002 at 16:04:01, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I think it likely there is ratings drift for the SSDF. Consider that for the >>most part, these programs do not learn. So "what you see is what you get" no >>matter when you play them. It is interesting to look over the programs on a >>given platform in this list. It appears to be a general trend that the ratings >>have been pushed down over time. Let's consider one example: >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30 off(1996) 2296 21 -21 1153 65% 2185 >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30 off(1997) 2294 21 -20 1202 64% 2194 >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30off (1998) 2293 21 -20 1202 64% 2193 >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30off (1999) 2293 21 -20 1202 64% 2193 >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30off (2000) 2195 21 -20 1219 63% 2099 >>Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30off (2002) 2195 21 -20 1219 63% 2099 >> >>It appears to have lost 100 ELO over the span from 1996 to 2195. And yet it is >>the exact same hardware that was used over each test. > >There is an obvious reason for it. >The ssdf decided to reduce all the numbers by 100 elo because the rating of the >top programs was too high. > >Uri I forgot to add that they decided that the rating is too high because they wanted to have a better estimate for the rating of the top programs against humans and they did not care about the old programs. Uri
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.