Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 22:18:15 05/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2003 at 12:32:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 29, 2003 at 07:00:43, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On May 29, 2003 at 04:16:15, James Constance wrote: >> >>>From Chessbase.com >>> >>>Shredder tops the computer rankings – again! >>>28.05.2003 This must be a bit alarming for Fritz. For the second time in a row >>>Shredder has topped the SSDF (Chess Computer Association) ranking list, based on >>>over 90,000 games played by 253 computers. Interestingly, the first program that >>>is not published by ChessBase is ranked number 14. Blush. >>> >>>I think it's a bit rich that they claim the top 13 positions, bearing in mind >>>the King is not being tested and Rebel is only in position 14 because there are >>>multiple versions of Shredder, Fritz and Chess Tiger. >>> >>>I do not feel that the list portrays engine strength very objectively. I'm all >>>for another list. >> >>I really don't like the way the list is published with all the multiple entries >>for each engine. Who cares about Shredder 6 or Fritz 7 when newer versions are >>already published? It is like publishing a FIDE rating list with multiple >>entries like Kasparov2003, Kasparov2002, Kramnik2003, Kramnik2001, etc. > >Some of the most important information is contained in the older entries. >Consider it as simply a set of data and you will see that throwing out entries >is silly. On the other hand, viewed as a contest, it does not make sense to >have multiple entries of the same engine. > I agree. However, mostly the SSDF list is viewed as a contest, for "who is the best". That is what I understand from a comment such as "the first program that is not published by ChessBase is ranked number 14". >>Publishing such an extended list might be appropriate as a footnote or appendix, >>but not as the main list. The main list should look like: >> >> Rating + - Games Won Oppo >> ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- >> 1 Shredder 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2768 27 -25 801 70% 2620 >> 2 Fritz 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2760 27 -26 781 69% 2616 >> 3 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2759 28 -27 694 69% 2621 >> 4 Chess Tiger 15.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2724 26 -26 744 63% 2630 >> 5 Junior 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2693 26 -26 719 56% 2653 >> 6 Hiarcs 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2680 23 -23 908 54% 2650 >> 7 Rebel Century 4.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2673 29 -29 590 60% 2603 >> 8 Ruffian 1.0.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2670 32 -32 483 55% 2632 >> 9 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2657 31 -31 514 53% 2633 >>10 Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2613 27 -27 647 52% 2602 >>11 Gromit 3.11.9 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2610 44 -46 246 43% 2662 > >As a contest for "Who is best" that is a good way to do it. As a body of data >for understanding the strength of computer programs, it is inferior to their >current format.
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.