Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:44:33 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:42:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. ChessMaster (on the other hand) can be purchased from Fred Meyers, BestBuy, Toys R Us, CompUSA, WalMart (and several others, I am very sure). >> 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.