Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:26:46 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 10:19:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? Both of them. We can make conclusions that the weaker programs are not good enough to be the first because if they compete for the first place the ssdf is going to test them also on the new hardware. We can also guess the rating of the old programs on the new hardware based on the rating of the old hardware and when the rating on the old hardware is lower relative to the opponents then it will probably not be very high also on the new hardware(programs may earn more from time but practical experience show that the difference is small and not more than 10-20 elo for doubling the speed. 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. He is not but other humans play games with players that are 300 elo weaker or 300 elo higher then them. The ssdf almost did not play uninteresting matches(matches with result of 20-0 or 19.5-.5) so I see no problem. Uri
This page took 0.05 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.