Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:25:28 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 04:36:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 03:55:58, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>THE SSDF RATING LIST 2002-05-22 86121 games played by 240 computers >> Rating + - Games Won Oppo >> ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- >> 1 Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2730 33 -31 494 64% 2626 >> 2 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 2722 33 -32 477 63% 2626 >> 3 Gambit Tiger 2.0 256MB Athlon 1200 2720 34 -33 441 62% 2635 >> 4 Deep Fritz 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 33 -32 482 63% 2623 >> 5 Shredder 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2713 35 -34 432 64% 2611 >> 6 Junior 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2693 31 -31 511 57% 2641 >> >>Shredder 6.32 (CB version) is 27 points behind Fritz 7 > > >1)Shredder6.32 is 1 elo behind Deep Fritz. > >> >> 7 Rebel Century 4.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2684 34 -32 470 64% 2585 >> 8 Shredder 5.32 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2670 31 -30 536 56% 2624 >> 9 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2653 34 -33 430 54% 2625 >> 10 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2652 23 -23 945 61% 2570 >> 11 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2646 29 -28 595 57% 2594 >> 12 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2642 49 -50 202 46% 2673 >> 13 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2640 30 -29 592 66% 2521 >> 14 Fritz 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 45 -44 250 56% 2592 >> 14 Junior 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 27 -26 739 67% 2507 >> 16 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 28 -27 652 62% 2541 >> 16 Shredder 6.0 UCI 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 65 -62 124 57% 2578 >> 18 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 23 -22 1014 63% 2529 >> >>Shredder 6.0 (UCI version) is 1 point behind Fritz 7 >> > >2)Shredder6 (UCI version) is 22 elo behind Deep Fritz. > >> SSDF comment >> >>We have played 124 games with the UCI-version of >>Shredder 6.0 K6-2 450 MHz, using the opening book of >>Sandro Necchi. So far the rating is 2630. With so few >>games it's difficult to draw any conclusions concerning >>which opening book Shredder 6.0 might benefit most from. >> >>My comment: >> >>What is 26 points difference? >> >>Apparently NOTHING:-)) >> >>No other comments are needed. >> >>Sandro Necchi > >3)My comment: > >You are absulutely right. > >26 elo difference can be translated to 21 elo difference for the other side so >they mean nothing. > >Uri If people would only understand that the "list" is not a ranking but a presentation of "nothings", the SSDF persons, who are investing so much precious time personally, could be moved to make a completely new and fair design for their testing. The actual list is bogus because the parts which interest the most have no statistical meaning, those parts however who have a certain meaning are no longer interesting for the public. But this is the fault of SSDF alone only at first glance, they are at the mercy of the industry because their system would function _in the long run_, but before it could succeed, the brand new versions of the programs appear. But this again leads to a permanent circle of investigating and presenting "nothing". Two possibilities. The SSDF is completely unaware of this. Or the software industry is the real chief in Sweden. Ah, yes, I forgot the interdependencies. It is often said that this "ranking" list is better than nothing, but this itself is a logical fallacy. I am sure that if the SSDF people would look through this they would stop this. And there are certainly better designs for testing such products with so nigh expire dates. And besides I am absolutely conform with Sandro Necchi that the commentary about the influence of his book is meaningless, because there is no way (what SSDF tried in their commentary) to extract logic in or out of a statistical nothing, but that was already what Dr. Tuerke said. Rolf Tueschen
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.