Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:14:52 12/30/03
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, 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. You are making a "classic mistake". You are looking at absolute Elo numbers, rather than the difference between the Elos of two players. Forget comparing that particular rating table with FIDE or USCF or anything else. Just compare the participants within that list, but add 100 to all ratings, or subtract 100 from all ratings, and the expectation for games will be _identical_... > >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.