Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 18:31:32 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 1999 at 20:06:31, Tina Long wrote: >The results of what I am asking could be badly misinterpreted, & could result in >silly arguements, but if read properly would, for many here, be very >interesting. > >In the discussions of "Who's best" there is rarely any consideration of the +/- >in the SSDF list, we get statements such as >"ProgramX is best; it's 5 points ahead of the rest." > >Now this is poetic, but wrong, as ProgramX's result is 2680 +/- 70, >From the games played we can be 95% sure ProgramX is rated somewhere between >2610 and 2750. > >This is not ELO, this is the progression of computers vs computers since some >computers played some humans about 20 years ago. The whole list was "deflated" >by 100 points about 10 years ago, and looks like it should be deflated by >another 100 points now. The only real relationship to ELO we currently have is >Rebel's small sample of Computer Human games, and as Rebel is constantly being >improved we don't know it's current rating as the rating is biased by the >"older" Rebel results- but that's a tangent.... sorry > >I'll get to the point: >When the next SSDF is release at the end of November, I'd like one of the >smarter maths whizes here to do the following calculations for me: > >Using: >What's the improvement in rating in going from a 200mhz to a 450mhz? >(Looking at the last list, it's about 70 +/- 30) >Ditto from 486/50 and P90 to 200 or 450? > >Create a list of estimated ratings on a unified platform, combining (where >applicable) the games of ProgramX on multiple platforms (many programs have been >tested on 2 mhz levels). The +/- needs to be stated as well as this will >increase dramatically, particularly for ProgramY currently ranked on P90 or a >486/50. > >(And where would my favourite oldie >129 Mephisto Polgar 6502 5 MHz 1970 17 1793 41% 2036 >rank when upgraded (remembering a P450 is probably 300 - not 100 - times faster) >2600 +- 1000 ?) > >Maybe deflating the 450's and using P200 as the unified platform would be best >at this time. > >I realise the results would actually mean little due to the very high >statistical variance in the results, but I would still find it an interesting >ranking. > >Any volunteers to do the sums? >Thanks guys > >Tina Long The variables would be too great to get any real accuracy. I question the calculations involved now in playing slower hardware against faster. But I neither have the time nor the effort to look into this to prove my case, So I am just throwing up my opinion. I think the SSDF has used a system which everyone accepts, whether accurate of not is another thing.
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.