Author: Albert Silver
Date: 18:49:52 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 15:21:39, Geert van der Wulp wrote:
>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
It's a pity you answered the subject title before actually reading the post,
since it in no way responds to anything I wrote.
The accuracy is an answer to the comparison between FIDE ratings and the SSDF,
and further claims that the SSDF is somehow *wrong* (i.e. inaccurate) compared
to the FIDE ratings.
Albert
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.