Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 00:13:11 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 20:59:35, James T. Walker wrote:
>On February 15, 2003 at 20:14:40, Sune Larsson wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2003 at 19:34:26, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>If you consider that it took Deep Junior a Quad 1.9 GHz or 8 x 1.6 GHz to get a
>>>draw score against Kasparov, then it is reasonable to suspect that Shredder 7
>>>can NOT possibly get a SSDF of 2768 on a mere 1.2 GHz. Either the SSDF adjust
>>>its rating by droping another 50 points or it is time to get an Athlon XP 2400+
>>>to justify its inflated rating system.
>>>
>>> THE SSDF RATING LIST 2003-02-13 90961 games played by 251 computers
>>> Rating + - Games Won Oppo
>>> ------ --- --- ----- --- ----
>>> 1 Shredder 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2768 33 -31 547 72% 2606
>>> 2 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2760 29 -28 654 70% 2612
>>>
>>>
>>>Pichard
>>
>>
>>
>> The SSDF numbers are not ELO numbers.
>>
>> /s
>
>Really? What are they? Are they not calculated according to Arpad Elo's
>suggestions? They certainly are not FIDE ratings but why are they not Elo
>ratings?
>Jim
Sorry Jim, it was obviously too late at night when I made my post...
What I meant was that the SSDF numbers from the list can't and shouldn't
be compared with the FIDE ratings for humans. This has been clarified
and explained in detail numerous times on this board. Still it happens
all the time probably because people want it to happen. The SSDF list
tells us about the difference, in points, between the programs on that
list - at a very special moment [date of the list].
So a list starting with 1.Shredder 7.0 1384
2.Deep Fritz 7 1380
would be as valid as the
one presented from SSDF.
"Yiihaa, I have just drawn Fritz 7!!" "Really, how strong is it?"
"Very strong - about 1370 SSDF points." "Oh... you're my man."
;-)
/s
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.