Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:56:38 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 12:02:37, Joshua Lee wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 05:39:09, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>rather than call these scores"ELO" lets take them for what they really are >>"SSDF" points; and all they measure is the relative performance of a computer vs >>another. this way even if it reaches 3000 in a couple of years we will not tear >>out hair over whether they are actually 3000 ELO or not >> >>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. >>> > > >I've been saying this for years .... now someone else agree's about time >thankyou. > >You can also see the same if you look at Deep Junior from Dortmund and See the >same discrepancy. Anyone who imagines that SSDF ratings are identical to FIDE ratings is hallucinating. Surely, there is some sort of correlation (e.g. higher FIDE ratings will do better against higher SSDF ratings) but exactly what the correlation is cannot be said for certain. The current match, consisting of a handful of games, does nothing at all to correlate SSDF and FIDE ratings, since neither hardware not program from the SSDF list has been used. Furthermore, autoplayer must be employed, if it was used in the list (there are some exceptions, like CM). If SSDF hardware and software were used, another couple hundred games would be needed to tighten the reigns on any possible strength connection.
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.