Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:16:33 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 16:56:18, Chessfun wrote: >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. > > >Even were another number chosen as the start value the relative position of them >to each other would remain. I am curious as to why they use the word's ELO on >any list as to me that always associates with human play, as opposed to a list >of programs. > > >>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. > > >It could be a beta version. There are enough "X" on the list 14, 31, 33, 42, 47, >57, 62, 67, 77, 102 that I'd personally be more interested in those especially >14.. I don't see how "X" should be included if you want to remove List 5.12. and >find it odd you would mention List without mentioning "X". There is even a >Gandalf X 4-03 in 32. > >Personally I don't see the point in listing any beta versions on any rating list >in this case that would include all the above. > >Sarah. Actually "Elo" doesn't apply to anything, just a system defined in his book. FIDE or USCF or whatever really makes an Elo number meaningful. The lack of such means it is an Elo that is not comparable to other Elo numbers for any player not in the rating pool it came from...
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.