Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:42:49 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2006 at 14:33:14, Chessfun wrote: >On February 11, 2006 at 14:20:59, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 11, 2006 at 13:40:02, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On February 11, 2006 at 04:33:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 11, 2006 at 04:19:04, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 11, 2006 at 04:07:35, Chessfun wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 10, 2006 at 18:13:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 10, 2006 at 17:30:10, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 10, 2006 at 15:55:55, Russell wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I dont agree with the list. H10 Hypermodern is not stronger than Fritz 9 nor is >>>>>>>>>S9 sronger than Fritz 9. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They're testing with 1200 megahertz AMDs, right? Perhaps at that low a speed, >>>>>>>>the rankings of the programs breaks out differently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Roger >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Low speed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>120/40 for 1200 Mhz AMD with ponder on is clearly higher level than 40/40 for 2 >>>>>>>ghz with ponder off(CEGT conditions). >>>>>>>I do not see reason to defend Fritz. >>>>>>>People who complain probably never tested it at slow time control and tested it >>>>>>>mainly at blitz. >>>>>> >>>>>>CCRL tested it at 4040 on AMD 3800+ and it is stronger IMO than shown by the >>>>>>SSDF results. I think it will increase in the SSDF as more games are played. >>>>>>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >>>>>> >>>>>>>It is possible that the picture in blitz is simply different and blitz on faster >>>>>>>hardware is not equivalent to 120/40 on A1200 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Note that comparing results of CEGT with SSDF also does not make sense because >>>>>>>conditions are different. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then why compare them? The poster simply stated that Fritz is stronger than as >>>>>>shown he never mentioned at blitz. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Different opening book >>>>>>>Different ponder on/ponder off >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This may be enough to explain slightly different results. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you now wish to look at the different results of SSDF and CEGT of course the >>>>>>different books, ponder and large time control difference is alone enough of an >>>>>>explaination for differences. But again the original poster was never comparing >>>>>>either. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sarah >>>>> >>>>>I could also add the latest selective search rating lists indicate that Fritz 9 >>>>>is stronger which may have also been something considered by the original >>>>>poster. Whereas you assumed a comparison with blitz controls. >>>>> >>>>>PC PROGRAMS >>>>>Ratings are calibrated to Pentium4 machines running at 1200MHz >>>>> >>>>>.............BCF Elo.. Program >>>>> >>>>>268 2755 Fritz9 (nearly 400 games played) >>>>>267 2742 Fruit2.2 WCCC05 (nearly 600 games played) >>>>>267 2737 Shredder9 >>>>>266 2732 Shredder8 >>>>>263 2705 Junior9 (Deep Junior9 add +40 Elo on dual/1000, +70 on quad/1000)) >>>>>261 2693 Junior8 >>>>>260 2688 Fritz8. (Deep Fritz7/8 add +40 Elo on dual/1000, +70 on quad/1000); >>>>>Fritz8-Bilbao probably +20 Elo >>>>>260 2683 Hiarcs9 (Hiarcs9.6 MAC appears to be +30/40 Elo improvement, Hiarcs10 >>>>>out soon) >>>>> >>>>>Sarah >>>> >>>>Pentium4 is known to be slower for chess relative to A1200 >>>>I also remember from the past that they used games from other sources that were >>>>not in SSDF conditions and I simply do not take the selective search rating >>>>seriously and it seems to me that they simply combine results of different tests >>>>that were not in the same conditions. >>> >>> >>>As you state yourself pentium 4 is slower relative to A1200 but they also use >>>SSDF results. >>> >>>There are many rating lists across the internet that combine others results with >>>their own to produce a greater list. But to say they combine results of >>>different tests seems to be to be wrong. They are specific of stating what they >>>test but the choice as with anything is of the reader. >>> >>>Anyway there conditions are: >>> >>>"Each computer/program's rating figure is calculated by combining its >>>computer-v-computer results WITH its results against graded players in proper >>>tournaments. The level of the finished List is determined by the results v >>>graded players, with a strong bias towards most recent results. Considerably >>>more computer-computer games are played than those v. humans, as it is >>>physically and financially impossible to enter enough Tournaments to obtain the >>>number of games v. humans that we would wish. >>> >>>Gradings from computer v computer results do not always match those of computer >>>v humans: a program CAN be prepared specifically to do its best against other >>>computers, OR it can be programmed to do its best against humans! The latter is >>>what USERS want, but programmers inevitably have an eye on our Rating Lists, and >>>are aware of the preponderance of computer-computer games which produces them! >>>Even so, my view is that it is BETTER to have this type of Computer Rating List, >>>as a guide for interested parties and prospective purchasers, than to rely >>>solely on manufacturers' claims! Another factor is that Chess Players are MUCH >>>more used to playing against Computers and Computer Programs than they were 5, >>>10, 15 years ago. Programs like the Fidelity Sensory9, Novag Super >>>Constellation, Mephisto Academy, Mephisto Lyon 68030 etc. would NOT be able to >>>obtain the same gradings they did in the 'old' days were they entered in the >>>same Tournaments again today! >>> >>>The results on which my Ratings are based include my own testing, that of >>>Selective Search readers, and (with permission) the valuable SSDF scores. So the >>>calculations combine MANY results and I believe that they achieve a high level >>>of accuracy. Time controls used are from a minimum G/60 or 60/60 up to and >>>including full Tournament time controls (as used by the SSDF) 40/2hrs. The >>>initial calculations are done in Elo, and converted to British BCF figures using >>>the formula (Elo-600)/8 = BCF." >>> >>>Sarah >> >>In the specific case I am almost sure that they had no ssdf games at the last >>time that it was updated. >> >>The ssdf used fruit2.2.1 and they used fruit2.2 or FruitWCCC >> >>They probably used mainly CEGT games that were the first available games for >>fruit and they were without original books. > >Why on earth would you assume they used CEGT games? seems you didn't read the >post: > >"Time controls used are from a minimum G/60 or 60/60 up to and >including full Tournament time controls (as used by the SSDF) 40/2hrs." >As far as I know most CEGT games are around 20, 22 or 24 minutes for 40 moves. They are 40/40 adopted to 2 ghz and I think that 40/40 is similiar time control to G/60 I wonder how did they get games of Fruit WCCC withotu the CEGT games because as far as I know Fruit WCCC was available only to CEGT testers. Uri
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.