Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:50:34 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2006 at 14:42:49, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Similar? I won't even argue about that but simply say if it meant that it would say that instead of saying "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." >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 It is possible that some testers are also readers of selective search and run time control games to comply with Erics rating list. Its also possible that Fruit WCCC was given to Eric and or other selective search testers. Sarah
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.