Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:11:15 11/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2004 at 12:01:51, Peter Skinner wrote:
>On November 21, 2004 at 11:34:24, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On November 21, 2004 at 11:17:31, Peter Skinner wrote:
>>
>>>On November 21, 2004 at 10:10:27, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>My own estimate is about 86 points. It is a very serious estimate, much like
>>>>yours, and is based on no games and no knowledge of the engine, also like your
>>>>estimate. BTW, there's a new player in my club who isn't rated yet, but I
>>>>estimate at about 1900. What's your estimate? Just to see if it is similar.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well mine _is_ based on data I have seen on Playchess, and "advertising" of
>>>engines.
>>>
>>>I remember Ruffian 2.1.0 being advertised as 100 elo stronger than 1.0.5..
>>>
>>>Gandalf 5.0 being advertised as "Much stronger than 4.32H"..
>>>
>>>Fritz 8 being advertised as 50 elo stronger than Fritz 7....
>>>
>>>I am just a sceptic based on recent advertising, and the results I have seen.
>>>
>>>As for the player in your chess club, by the looks of him, I would guess he is
>>>rated more in the range of 0-1899.. Just off what you figure :)
>>>
>>>Peter
>>
>>I understand your skepticism, and appreciate your frustrating past experience,
>>but it still doesn't put you in a position to speculate on its rating, which is
>>what I objected too.
>>
>> Albert
>
>Well technically I am in a position to speculate on it's rating. That is why it
>is called a speculation.
>
>Instead of just agreeing and saying it _will_ be 100 elo stronger I looked at
>games played online at FICS and Playchess, and saw the engine still has some of
>the problems 4.32H and 5.1 had.
>
>I took the quality of oppoistion, the hardware used and while unscientifically
>came up with an improvement of 50 elo.
You see, that's my objection. I think it is based on nothing at all. At least
from what you claim your estimate is based on. Note that you said you estimated,
and not speculated. To my understanding that means you are making a rough
evaluation.
>
>People estimate a program's rating here all the time.
And?
>I have 100+ games from the
>Lokasoft site, and probably 50 more off the servers to make my determination.
If you take the Lokasoft games as evidence, then your speculation is in direct
contradiction of the results shown.
>Most here see two games and suddenly it is the be all of chess engines.
That doesn't mean you need do the same.
>So I am in a _perfect_ position to speculate on it's strength, the book quality,
>or even if the sky is green in Steen's world. It doesn't mean I am going to be
>right or wrong.. it is just a speculation.
>
>Peter
Fine by me, and you're 100% correct in stating that you can base your
speculation on whatever you please, but that being your position, don't be
offended if in the future I consider any engine strength estimates on your part
to be based on thin air.
I myself have seen a dozen games or so, seen the results presented, and would
never dream of speculating on its future SSDF rating. Just my 2 cents.
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.