Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 06:54:54 06/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 20:24:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 19:27:37, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>On June 09, 2004 at 19:23:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On June 09, 2004 at 19:07:39, Derek Paquette wrote: >>> >>>>On June 09, 2004 at 18:49:40, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>Taking on a 3400+ AMD 64 with 2 GB RAM and Fritz 8 >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1703 >>>> >>>>this is very annoying for someone who is a chess enthusiast like myself. >>>> >>>>why would the company that is marketting this laptop, RISK using a program that >>>>is 40 elo LOWER? >>>>i just dont' get it, >>>>i think it comes down to plain old ignorance of chess programs >>>>why NOT use shredder 8? >>>>this is very frusterating, because we never get to see shredder 8 in action vs >>>>grandmasters at tournament time controls. >>> >>>Probably, they have a good reason. >>>For instance, they might take 7.04 and analyze every game she has every played >>>at very slow time control. Now, they have a database and expected response for >>>most of the moves she is likely to make. >>> >>>Perhaps the analysis started long ago. They know for sure exactly how it would >>>work with 7.04 >>> >>>Bleeding edge is not always the best thing, if you want a reliable outcome. >>>For the same reason, we won't always see the fastest possible hardware. It >>>could be that the fastest stuff has not been tested. It would be a mistake to >>>try an untested system. >> >>that is very true, if shredder 8 was released last week, HOWEVER, >>shredder 8 has been released long enough for the following to happen, >>SSDF has had enough time to test it >>ICC is full of shredder 8 (and it turning humans into mince meat) >> >>that is enough to say that the program is well tested, and that it would kick >>the crap out of a human, because its certainly beating around fritz 8. > >It it not known whether Fritz 8 would do better against humans than Shredder 8. > >We might surmise it from SSDF and WMCCC results, but that is really an >extrapolation that may not be correct. I agree to 100%. It's an extrapolation - only experience can tell if it's right. > >At any rate, even the SSDF Elo strength rating also does not decide who is >stronger: This is not the right way to interpret the table. I should know as I once designed that table :-) First: The ratings 2818 for Schredder and 2790 for Deep Fritz are their ratings to the best of our knowledge, given the information we have from results. That is the best we can say, regardless of confidence. Second: The interval is another story. We don't know the real rating point. The interval [2786,2852] for Shredder is covering the real point with a confidence of 95% given the information we have. To add and subtract the ratings for different individuals to find out if we have an overlap is not the right way to go. If they overlap we can't say anything about where the two real ratings are placed without doing some more math. If the interval from one of them is covering the estimated rating of the other as it does in this case. 2786 is less than 2790 we could probably make some kind of statement. /Peter > THE SSDF RATING LIST 2004-04-22 97872 games played by 264 computers > Rating + - Games Won Oppo > ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- > 1 Shredder 8.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2818 34 -32 481 70% 2673 > 2 Shredder 7.04 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2809 24 -23 967 71% 2648 > 3 Deep Fritz 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2790 26 -25 855 72% 2625 > >2818 - 32 = 2786 >2790 + 26 = 2816
This page took 0.01 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.