Author: Geert van der Wulp
Date: 12:21:39 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 09:42:26, Albert Silver wrote: >On March 05, 2004 at 21:54:11, GuyHaworth wrote: > >> >>A common confusion is to try to compare FIDE ELO ratings (about a community of >>human players) with SSDF ELO ratings (about a community of computers). >> >>This is understandable, as the metric used is referred to as 'ELO' in both >>cases. However, 'ELO' is the measurement system rather than the measurement, >>the 'scale' rather than the 'weight'. > >(snip) > >>I feel that less confusion would certainly be the result. >> >>g > >The following was posted here about 3+ years ago: > >http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=82028 > >Subject : SSDF ratings are 100% accurate > >Posted on December 12, 1999 at 08:49:08 > >Hi all, > >As the issue of SSDF ratings, and their comparative value with USCF or FIDE >ratings, has been a recurring theme and a number of threads have sprouted >recently, I thought I'd share my opinion (self-plagiarized) as I think it is >relevant and might shed some light on the matter. > >SSDF ratings: inflated or not? > >Here's what I think: the ratings are not inflated in the least bit. Sounds crazy >doesn't it? But it's not. People get too caught up trying to make these futile >comparisons between SSDF ratings and human ratings whether USCF, FIDE, or >whatever. The point is, and it has been repeated very often, there simply is no >comparison. The only comparison possible is that both are generated using Elo's >rating system, but that's where it ends. Elo's system is supposed to calculate, >according to a point system, the probability of success between opponents rated >in that system. The SSDF rating list does that to perfection, but it is based on >the members of the SSDF only. If you put Fritz 5.32 on fast hardware up against >the Tasc R30 or whatnot, it will pulverize the machine. The difference in SSDF >ratings accurately depicts that. It has NOTHING to do with FIDE or USCF ratings. >The rating of Fritz, Hiarcs, or others on the SSDF rating list depicts their >probability of success against other programs on the SSDF list, and that's it. >It doesn't represent their probability of success against humans because humans >simply aren't a part of the testing. If you want to find out how a program will >do against humans then test it against humans, and then you will find it's >rating against them. The SSDF rating has nothing whatsoever to do with that. As >was pointed out, I believe the SSDF ratings pool is a pool that is COMPLETELY >isolated from all others and as such cannot possibly be compared with them. > >Albert Silver You are completely wrong. A rating can only be 100% accurate if the participants have played an infinite number of games. The SSDF would make itself rediculous if they claimed to be 100% accurate. They give statistical confidence intervals with all the ratings that they publish. Geert
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.