Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:14:55 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 This explains "the rating drift" perfectly. The first few years, the ratings remains about the same, then suddenly about 100 rating points disappear in the year 2000. Most of DC's examples follow the same pattern. I think DC will be disappointed that his "discovery" is not going to exactly rank right up there with the theory of continental drift ;)
This page took 0.01 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.