Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:17:17 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 12:04:43, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 11:18:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 25, 2002 at 09:48:14, Harald Faber 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 >>> >>> >>>In fact Shredder is *17* points behind Fritz 7. ;-) >>>2730 - 2713 :-) Yes, this is true, but still Shredder 6 (UCI) could have been no. 1. >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>>Shouldn't be the program listed higher which has a smaller margin of error (= >>>has played more games)? >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>>Exactly. And that is why I've been saying for ages that at least the top-5 >>>programs play on ONE level. None of them is really significant stronger than the >>>others. >> >>We know this, but this is not reality. For 99.9% of the worldpopulation >>it doesn't matter whether you are at 0.0001 difference at number 2, >>or at 1000 difference. >> >>The first one is the winner and the rest has lost. > >That is NOT true all the programs that end in the first 5 places in the SSDF >deserve equal admiration, since if you match them five times their ranking order >will be different every single time. Well, you must think in a "sportive" way "the important is not to partecipate, but be no. 1". This is what a lot of people think. >Simply take a look at the last three SSDF >Rating Lists, and you will immediately notice that Chess Tiger 14, Fritz 7, and >Shredder 6 have traded first place. Sorry but I don't care about trying, but about reaching... When we prepare we want to win, not only try. Do you understand what I mean? > >Pichard. Sandro
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.