Author: John Dawlish
Date: 14:09:48 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 16:18:20, Mike Hood wrote: >Take a look at the end-of-year Best-for-Fritz rating list, I think Best-for-Fritz is a good description of this rating list. All those versions of Fritz 8 are roughly about the same rating and one can infer that they are basically the same program with perhaps a few alterations and bug fixes. Listing them separately has the effect of pushing all Fritz's competitors down the list into artificially low positions. IMO. JD for engines running >in the Fritz GUI, at >http://www.beepworld.de/members39/computerschach2/bff-liste.htm > >I have two "doubts" about the list: > >1) At the bottom of the list is the Chessbase native engine Turing, with a >rating of 1572. This seems horribly inflated to me. My own "official" rating, >based on my league games, is 1430. I played a series of games against Turing and >won 8-0, no draws. My personal estimate for Turing is between 1000 and 1200. If >you can't trust the Elo values at the bottom of the list, how can you trust the >values at the top of the list? Maybe the arbitrary start value of 2600 was too >high. If a start value of 2400, or even 2200, had been used, a more meaningful >rating list would have been achieved. > >2) In 21st place there is a native Chessbase engine called List 5.12. This is >neither a commercial engine, nor a free engine, so is it a secret engine that >somebody has slipped to CSS "under the hand"? Is it the engine that was >disqualified at the recent computer chess tournament in Graz? Based on the >replies to my previous question in this forum, nobody knows where it's come >from, so it doesn't deserve to be included in the rating list.
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.