Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 06:48:44 05/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2002 at 09:01:56, Chris Carson wrote: >On May 02, 2002 at 07:06:16, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>On May 02, 2002 at 06:57:35, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2002 at 06:10:55, Jouni Uski wrote: >>> >>>>It seems, that SSDF 40/2 ratings need again 50-100 points lowering. Hmm. how >>>>many times that has been done already? And will oldest computers soon have >>>>negative >>>>rating then? Or does this prove, that comp-comp play exaggerates differences... >>>> >>>>Jouni >>> >>>It has been calibrated twice and changed once that I know about. >>> >>>I hope the old computers do not go negative, that would be a huge adjustment. ;) >>> >>>Calibration between different pools of participants may need to be recalibrated, >>>this is true for humans and machines. I am not sure the lists are out of sync, >>>I will take a look and come back with the results. >>> >>>I think the SSDF cosiders human results and compares to current SSDF list, my >>>guess is that some of the comps SSDF rating will be above the human ELO >>>performance and some will be below. We will see. >> >>Sadly abovementioned games were not 40/2. I quess, that at this level humans are >>better - for that reason I quess we need 50 points lowering. >> >>Jouni > >I can not say if any adjustment should be considered. I will take a look, but I >am sure, it will only be preliminary. Also, at first glance, Fritz and Hiarcs >look to be above, Junior may be close, Shredder and GTiger may be below. There >is no additional data on GTiger, so that one may not have any relevance at this >time. We will see and ofcourse I will show Program/HW/TPR/SSDF/Time Control. I >will try to get this done sometime today or tomorrow, however, it is in my off >hours that I do this, so something might come up and delay the posting. > Thanks a lot for your contribution Chris. >I would say that the comps and GM's were competitive with each other, however, >each has weakness that can be exploited by the other, which is why it is still >interesting. That's a profound truth. >It may not be competitive with mid 2600 GM's 3 years from now. And that's a "scary" prospective... ;) w.b.r. Otello
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.