Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:19:21 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 22:20:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 21:55:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >># Here follows a list of simple questions. >> >># 1) SSDF equips each time the new programs with the fastest hardware. Do we >>find out this way if the new engine is stronger than the older? No! Quite simply >>because the old engines could be as strong or stronger on new hardware. > >There are some programs that use more than one hardware in the ssdf list so we >can know the expected increase in rating from the new hardware. > >Things may be different for different programs but if the fidderence is big then >we are going to know if the new programs are better than the old programs. Mmhhm. Frankly I do not understand. Are you saying that we, the readers of the SSDF list, should be inspired enough to make our own conclusions, or do you argue that SSDF is doing a wonderful job? And BTW what is your concept of "big"? What is big when you have a margin of +/- 30 points uncertainty? Could you please elaborate on that point? > ><snipped> >># 6) SSDF often matches newest progs vs ancient progs. Why? Because the >>variability of the choice of the opponent is important for the calculation of >>Elo numbers? Hence Kasparov is playing against a master player of about Elo >>2350? Of course not! Such nonsense is not part of human chess [as necessity of >>Elo numbers!]! Or is it that the lacking validity of the computer should be >>replaced by the play against weakest and helpless opponents? We don't know. > > >The ssdf does not play matches between programs that the difference in rating is >more than 400 elo and kasparov plays against players that are clearly weaker >than him. > >Uri Also this about Kasparov for me is rather a circle in the argument since Kasparov has the highest Elo number. By force he's always playing weaker players. Take Huebner, he has almost 200 (!) points less. But nobody would suppose that Huebner is absolutely outdated and a weak player. Although for sure he'll lose against Kasparov. But on the other hand would you support the practice of SSDF, I repeat one of the snipped points, where a program is weaker in all four categories and still is matched against newcomers with newest hardware? As we all know that in difference to human chess computers have a much more deterministic play? But again, we do _not_ know what SSDF is doing in detail. And finally how could we know anything at all if we have no validity? You didn't comment on this point at the beginning of my questions. Did you agree? But then I can't understand your confidence in concepts like for example "big" or also "400 points". How do we know that they don't test machines with differences of "400" points? If we don't know what SSDF numbers mean _at all_? And then the +/+ 30-50 "points" "uncertainty"... 2x50= already 100. Should I search for examples in the history of SSDF? I am certain that I could find such events of 300! Then my assumption about Kasparov would still be true because he ain't playing 2490 players. But again, we do _not_ know if 400 is the same in human chess Elo and computer Elo! ;-) Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.1 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.