Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 02:14:08 01/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2003 at 00:09:04, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 17, 2003 at 22:30:11, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>On January 17, 2003 at 22:17:33, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 2003 at 20:01:04, enrico carrisco wrote: >>> >>>>On January 17, 2003 at 19:22:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 17, 2003 at 18:47:59, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 17, 2003 at 18:39:29, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>So the Fritzes are still the best! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=724 >>>>> >>>>>None of your conclusions follow from the data presented. >>>> >>>>That's what I love about average user interpretations of the SSDF list. Armed >>>>and dangerous with "theories." >>>> >>>>-elc. >> >> >>What did I missed here? I didn't say better then all the commecials. Simply do >>the comparison. Sorry but this is NOT a theory, it is simply one of the best way >>to compare the strength of these programs, unless you have a better rating >>system than the SSDF. >> >> >>10 Hiarcs 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2679 25 -25 772 55% 2642 11 >>Ruffian 1.0.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2676 39 -37 346 60% 2604 12 >>Rebel Century 4.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2673 29 -29 590 60% 2603 >> >>16 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2650 34 -33 430 54% 2622 >>19 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2638 49 -50 202 46% 2670 >>20 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2636 25 -25 758 55% 2603 >> >>PS: And you can also add that on the same hardware an Athlon 1200 MHz, it is as >>strong as Hiarcs 8.0 and Rebel Century 4.0 >> >>Pichard > >Conclusions: >1. Fritzes still the best: > Rating + - Games Won Oppo >1 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2754 31 -29 614 71% 2601 >2 Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2739 30 -29 574 64% 2634 >3 Chess Tiger 15.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2729 29 -27 660 66% 2614 >4 Shredder 6.0 Pad UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 2725 24 -23 911 64% 2627 > >Highest rated Fritz has central estimate 2754, with an error range of +31 to >-29. > >Chess Tiger has a central estimate of 2729 with an error range of +29 to -27 > >2754 - 29 = 2725 (bottom end of estimate of Deep Fritz 7's strength) >2729 + 29 = 2758 (high end of estimate of Chess Tiger's strength) >It could easily be true that Chess Tiger is stronger than Fritz (though slightly >less probable than the other way around) > >Illustration: > >I saw a bear that was between 7 feet 9 inches and 9 feet 2 inches in length. >I saw another bear that was between 7 feet 5 inches and 8 feet 11 inches in >length. >Will you conclude that the first bear was bigger than the second bear? > >Now, as for Ruffian verses Gandalf: >11 Ruffian 1.0.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2676 39 -37 346 60% 2604 >... >19 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2638 49 -50 202 46% 2670 > >2676 - 37 = 2639 >2638 + 49 = 2687 > >It could easily be true that Gandalf is stronger than Ruffian (though slightly >less probable than the other way around) > >The uncertainty in the measurements is clearly stated. > >We can say (with almost dead on certainty) that Deep Fritz: >1 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2754 31 -29 614 71% 2601 >2754 - 29 = 2725 (bottom end of estimate of Deep Fritz 7's strength) > >is stronger than: >24 Gromit 3.11.9 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2620 55 -56 162 44% 2662 >2620 + 55 = 2675 (upper end of estimate of Gromit's strength) > >because 2725 is bigger than 2675. So here we saw a bear that was between 8 and >9 feet long and compared it with a bear that was between 6 and 7 feet long. The >first bear was bigger. Thank you Dann for explaining this. There are so many people here who just don't understand how to read the list. Tony
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.