Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:02:42 06/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2002 at 10:59:50, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On June 04, 2002 at 06:29:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 04, 2002 at 04:50:45, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On June 03, 2002 at 22:20:08, Allen Lake wrote: >>> >>>>On June 03, 2002 at 20:39:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The big problem with statistics is >>>>>that 99% of the world's population has no idea what they might possibly mean. >>>>>Therefore, when they see them, they draw all sorts of incorrect assertions from >>>>>them. >>>> >>>>I wondered when somebody was going to say this :) And I applaud your example of >>>>the two lists below: >>>> >>>>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>>>> >>>>> 1 LG2000V3 : 2589 97 197 31 77.4 % 2375 6.5 % >>>>> 2 Yace 0.99.50 : 2586 31 104 188 86.2 % 2268 12.8 % >>>>> 3 MAD-005 : 2583 37 110 145 83.1 % 2306 10.3 % >>>>> 4 Crafty-18.10 : 2580 102 138 29 75.9 % 2381 27.6 % >>>>> 5 Comet-B37 : 2554 103 129 31 71.0 % 2398 25.8 % >>>>> 6 TCBishop-4601 : 2542 103 165 30 73.3 % 2367 13.3 % >>>>> 7 Gromit3 : 2527 99 100 36 66.7 % 2407 33.3 % >>>>> 8 Nejmet-260 : 2526 109 163 28 71.4 % 2367 14.3 % >>>>> 9 Phalanx-xxii : 2522 102 153 33 68.2 % 2390 9.1 % >>>>> 10 AnMon-509 : 2518 33 83 195 81.0 % 2266 14.4 % >>>>> 11 Amy-07 : 2507 36 106 157 82.5 % 2238 9.6 % >>>>> 12 TCBishop-0045 : 2503 112 130 29 67.2 % 2378 24.1 % >>>>> 13 AnMon-510 : 2497 36 98 162 81.5 % 2240 11.1 % >>>>> 14 ZChess-222 : 2492 31 75 230 78.9 % 2263 12.6 % >>>>> 15 GLC-213 : 2469 112 120 33 60.6 % 2395 18.2 % >>>>> 16 ZChess-120 : 2452 35 70 194 74.7 % 2264 14.4 % >>>>> 17 Gromit2 : 2434 125 81 32 53.1 % 2412 43.8 % >>>>> 18 Pepito-121 : 2432 126 117 28 58.9 % 2369 25.0 % >>>>> 19 Ant-606 : 2429 110 110 37 56.8 % 2382 16.2 % >>>>> 20 FranWB-090 : 2427 36 63 202 71.5 % 2267 15.3 % >>>>> >>>>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>>>> >>>>> 1 LG2000V3 : 289 97 197 31 77.4 % 75 6.5 % >>>>> 2 Yace 0.99.50 : 286 31 104 188 86.2 % -32 12.8 % >>>>> 3 MAD-005 : 283 37 110 145 83.1 % 6 10.3 % >>>>> 4 Crafty-18.10 : 280 102 138 29 75.9 % 81 27.6 % >>>>> 5 Comet-B37 : 254 103 129 31 71.0 % 98 25.8 % >>>>> 6 TCBishop-4601 : 242 103 165 30 73.3 % 67 13.3 % >>>>> 7 Gromit3 : 227 99 100 36 66.7 % 107 33.3 % >>>>> 8 Nejmet-260 : 226 109 163 28 71.4 % 67 14.3 % >>>>> 9 Phalanx-xxii : 222 102 153 33 68.2 % 90 9.1 % >>>>> 10 AnMon-509 : 218 33 83 195 81.0 % -34 14.4 % >>>>> 11 Amy-07 : 207 36 106 157 82.5 % -62 9.6 % >>>>> 12 TCBishop-0045 : 203 112 130 29 67.2 % 78 24.1 % >>>>> 13 AnMon-510 : 197 36 98 162 81.5 % -60 11.1 % >>>>> 14 ZChess-222 : 192 31 75 230 78.9 % -37 12.6 % >>>>> 15 GLC-213 : 169 112 120 33 60.6 % 95 18.2 % >>>>> 16 ZChess-120 : 152 35 70 194 74.7 % -36 14.4 % >>>>> 17 Gromit2 : 134 125 81 32 53.1 % 112 43.8 % >>>>> 18 Pepito-121 : 132 126 117 28 58.9 % 69 25.0 % >>>>> 19 Ant-606 : 129 110 110 37 56.8 % 82 16.2 % >>>>> 20 FranWB-090 : 127 36 63 202 71.5 % -33 15.3 % >>>>> >>>>>Notice (however) that the highest ELO is 2589 in the first list and 289 in the >>>>>second. Yet this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the >>>>>differences. >>>> >>>>I know you've tried long and hard to make this point over the months I've been >>>>reading here, Dann. Unfortunately, that second type of list, no matter how >>>>statistically valid, is not going to "sell" many chess programs -- and isn't >>>>that what most of the major rating lists are _really_ about? This is not to say >>>>that SSDF and its list don't provide a valuable consumer resource concerning the >>>>commercial chess programs. >>> >>>I'm not sure what you mean by that but SSDF does compute ratings soley based on >>>the differences between the players. The list is in the next step adjusted based >>>on some games between programs vs humans. The level of the list is intended to >>>be of about the same level as the FIDE list. They will of course not be be >>>interchangeable and can never be but it gives some feeling of where the level is >>>compared to humans. >> >>No way, Peter! As you write it was about "some" games. This is _not_ >>correct calibrating. At that time you did that programs would have lost to 100% >>against experts, masters, IM and GM. But then afterwards you started the comp vs >>comp fantasy. And today you claim GM level on the basis of "some" games against >>patzers. I don't say that you did intend that ast the beginning. But it's the >>description of the historical truth. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >I don't really know what games are used today but that is not very important >from my point of view. There is no correct calibration, whatever method you are >using. They ars not the same pool of players and even if you calibrate, lets >say, Fritz rating according to USSF or FIDE (also two different pools that would >indeed give different ratings to Fritz) you can't know for sure that the other >ratings in the list are calibrated. They are probably not. >You have to live with the fact that we only can get about the same levels in >rating. >Look at the German ratings compared to FIDE. I haven't seen them but can bet on >that they are different. > >Peter Yes, much lower, about 100 points and more. 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.