Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: It is a bit misleading to say "Fritz 5.32 leads new SSDF Rating List"

Author: Tony Hedlund

Date: 09:41:00 06/03/99

Go up one level in this thread


On June 02, 1999 at 21:29:25, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On June 02, 1999 at 02:19:10, Brett Clark wrote:
>
>>The SSDF Rating List - June 01, 1999
>>66289 games played by 191 computers
>>                                           Rating   +     -  Games   Won  Oppo
>>                                           ------  ---   --- -----   ---  ----
>>   1 Fritz 5.32  64MB P200 MMX               2577   29   -28   627   66%  2458
>Fritz 5.32 has a rating between 2606 and 2549 with 95% confidence.  The swath of
>possibilities would be even larger for 97% confidence, etc.
>
>>   2 Chessmaster 6000  64MB P200 MMX         2576   61   -53   182   76%  2378
>CM 6000 has a rating between 2637 and 2523 with 95% confidence.
>
>>   3 Hiarcs 7.0  64MB P200 MMX               2570   27   -26   715   63%  2475
>H7 has a rating between 2597 and 2544 with 95% confidence.
>
>>   4 Fritz 5.0 PB29%  67MB P200 MMX          2565   24   -23   946   67%  2436
>Fritz5 has a rating between 2589 and 2542 with 95% confidence
>
>>   5 Nimzo 99  64MB P200 MMX                 2563   32   -31   513   63%  2471
>Nimzo99 has a rating between 2595 and 2532 with 95% confidence
>
>>   6 Junior 5.0  64MB P200 MMX               2543   30   -29   576   63%  2448
>Junior 5 has a rating between 2573 and 2514 with 95% confidence
>
>>   7 Rebel 9.0  47MB P200 MMX                2525   24   -24   883   62%  2442
>Rebel 9 has a rating between 2549 and 2501 with 95% confidence.
>
>etc. for the rest.
>Notice with this group, there is no way to know for sure if any of them is
>really better than the others.  The "odds are" that the top programs are
>somewhat better than those below them.  But notice that within the same
>confidence band, Rebel 9 might be 2549 and Fritz 5.32 could be also.
>
>The highest mean ELO estimate goes to Fritz, but I think that CM or Hiarcs are
>equally likely to be of the same strength or higher.  In any case, all of these
>programs are on a par in ability and they would have to play each other
>thousands of times to find out which one is really the strongest.  By which
>time, of course, we would all have upgraded and nobody would care.
>;-)

Sorry, I meant thank you Dann. I wish more people read the list as you do.

Tony



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.