Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:00:47 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2002 at 15:35:14, Joshua Haglund wrote: >http://w1.859.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm > >(or below) > >I find this list is rather inaccurate. If you look at the list it will show that >Chessmaster 8000 is rather weak. They only showed it on a 128MB K6-2 450 MHz, >while the other "stronger computers" Ex: Deep Fritz 7 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz, >is run on a faster computer. If this list were to become accurate it would have >to play each opponent the same number of times on the same hardware, and the >total number of games to be the same thoughout every oppenent. Why they even >threw in the K6-2 computer and didn't run all on the same hardware, who knows? It is known that new programs get new hardware. chessmaster8000 is old and if you compare it with Deep Fritz 7 on the same hardware you can see that Fritz is better. >There is also more than one computer run on slower hardware in the list. Ex: >Genius 6.5, Crafty 17.07. > >I'd say, "If your going to do rating list, do it right!" I'd say that it is easy to complain and there is no justification for criticizing the ssdf about the data that they give. They could do a list of games on 386 and never update their hardware but I am sure that in that case people are going also to complain. They could hide the players on slower hardware but in that case people could also complain. They could have different lists for different hardware and have less games in every list but I am sure that in that case people could also complain that there are not enough games to get significant results. Uri
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.