Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What is the upper limit for SSDF rating scale?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 15:42:27 06/01/04

Go up one level in this thread


On June 01, 2004 at 12:55:37, Mike Byrne wrote:

>On June 01, 2004 at 10:40:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On June 01, 2004 at 10:16:33, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>>
>>>On June 01, 2004 at 06:38:21, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 05:52:26, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 31, 2004 at 20:37:19, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 31, 2004 at 19:27:20, Jonathan Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the ICD chess software, the engines surpass 2750 and going over 2800 at 1.2
>>>>>>>GHZ?
>>>>>>>How high can the Swedish rating system, SSDF, can it go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FIDE's and USCF's highest are 3000.
>>>>>>>I learned later that ELO perhaps can go over 8000 (that would be somthing like
>>>>>>>50+ ply for ELO).
>>>>>>>Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without knowledge of the rating population, the absolute value of any ELO is
>>>>>>valueless.  The way SSDF is designed, a fixed pool of computer programs
>>>>>>generally running and rated on older hardware with the new blood coming in on
>>>>>>faster hardware with more modern programs - there is only one for the ratings to
>>>>>>go and that is up.    They have bad case of what I call the "Bloodgood" effect
>>>>>>with the limited rating pool.
>>>>>
>>>>>Very true. SSDF and other computer rating lists are highly inflationary.
>>>>>You can't compare it with FIDE rating system at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is not only a different pool of players.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chessbase of course is not unhappy with the present state.
>>>>>After all the ratings are a good sales argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael
>>>>
>>>>I do not think it is a good sales argument.
>>>>
>>>>Most players do not care much about the exact rating against humans when the
>>>>program is better than them.
>>>
>>>That´s Nonsense. They _care_ about the strength compared to the top human
>>>players.
>>>The number of players who buy a new program in order to play against it at full
>>>strength is negligible small anyway.
>>
>>I know that most people do not buy a new program in order to play against it but
>>my point is that people buy a program because it is better than the previous
>>version and the relative strength to the top humans is irrelevant.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Ratings , like it or not , are relevant to some consumers.  They are used for
>advertings purposes all the time - either SSDF or some pefromance ratings
>against GM's etc.  Ratings are to chess programs, is like Ghz is to PCs , top
>cruising speed is to automobiles, etc.  There are fair number of  consumers who
>believe they must always have the best, fastest, strongest, rarest etc.  Just
>ask Chessbase or just about any professional chess author - do they sell more
>"Young Talents" or is their flagship products like Fritz, Shredder etc.
>
>What was the hottest chess program in the early 90 's -  Chess Genius - why -
>because it was considered the top back then.  Which program do people want to
>buy today - it is Shredder.

I am guessing that there are at least 1000 sales of ChessMaster for every sale
of Shredder.

You can't even buy Shredder where I live in Federal Way, WA (population 90,000).
 You would have to order online or go to Seattle to buy it.

> Why because of knowledge people know that Shredder
>is the strongest or they believe to be the strongest.  Anybody who comes to CCC
>is for the most part more knowledgeabe than the average consumer on the street
>who knows nothing about Chess Program.  If one of my chess friends tells me they
>want to buy the strongest chess program, I would tell them right now I believe
>it is Shredder 8.  All of us here gave influence to a certain degree what chess
>program our friends buy.  Now as indidviduals , some of us may prefer one
>program over another - which is fine - but collectively we cast our votes by
>which programs we buy and which ones our friends buy.  The people who sell Chess
>programs know that "perceived" strength matters and ratings blend into that
>concept of "perceived" strength.  So to say ratings are irrelevant does not make
>any sense to me at all.
>
>YMMV.



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.