Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:20:00 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 18:04:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 31, 2002 at 11:26:46, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >?? Where did you get that from? It's not true because SSDF once tested the new >Wch on older 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. > >Ok, you know what I wrote about "Elo" in SSDF. But how about the memory? Not >much effect too? And also I think that we are not discussing SSDF IMO. > > > >> >> >> >> >>> 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. > >Yes, but only in OPEN! Not in tournament play. > > >> >>The ssdf almost did not play uninteresting matches(matches with result of 20-0 >>or 19.5-.5) so I see no problem. > >Uri, please excuse me if I become a bit more direct in my statements. You are >completely misleaden if you say such a thing. BTW you are usually the one who >analysed the game scores. What are you talking about when you say 20-0 is >uninteresting? You must know like me that we can't compare computers strength >with human chess player strength. Speaking in terms of stats: > >°° With the many thousands of _active_ human chess players you get well >exactitudes of 10 or 5 or even less points difference between ranks, and _still_ >you have totally different individuals. However in computerchess with the actual >testing of perhaps 10 programs you are either testing the same individual >program or you are presenting artefacts, when you find 8 points difference and >error margins of +/- >30. In other words you don't have a result at all. > >°° Normally the edition of the list in May 2002 had to be postponed or the >ranking had to be completely designed with new ideas. The top of the May 2002 >list simply makes no sense. And the rest doesn't matter for the moment. The >weaker programs are nothing but technical supplier for more points. > >Rolf Tueschen > >> You proved it again! You didn't understand a single sentence! Impressing!! Bertil
This page took 0.03 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.