Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 08:47:59 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
I don't know any specifics about the SSDF list, but it's entirely possible that the ratings are accurate. Remember, ratings are only good for comparing player A to player B (assuming both players have the same sort of rating: FIDE, USCF, SSDF, etc.). So it's possible for Fritz to be rated 8000 on SSDF and that would be accurate as long as all the relationships are preserved. There's also no aspect of an Eloish rating system that says your rating should stay the same if you play the same. If you have a FIDE rating and all of a sudden everybody with FIDE ratings gets way better than you, you are going to get pummeled and your rating will drop, even though you don't get weaker. That must be what happens on the SSDF list when better hardware is introduced. -Tom On December 10, 1999 at 23:29:28, Chuck wrote: >I would like to make a statement which supports Bob Hyatt's position that most >ratings given for computer chess programs are inflated, including recent >releases on the SSDF list. > >I have noticed that programs go through a cycle, which is obvious and easy to >see. Now, an unmodified program and hardware should play at a very consistent >level over long periods of time (really, for as long as it works). > >But when a new program is released, it is better and faster than most of its' >competition, thus, it's rating gets inflated. As it gets older, it is surpassed >by more and more of its' competitors and it starts getting pounded, whereby it's >rating takes a pounding, too. > >This DOES happen on SSDF. The best example is easily the Mach IV. Bertil Eklund >claims this to not be true, but, the Mach IV had a SSDF rating of 2282 in >January 1993 but now has a SSDF rating of 2074(?)!! Thats a 208-point drop!! > >Obviously, the Mach IV was not modified, so this is clear evidence of the cycle >I mentioned. > >Now, I am grateful for the work SSDF does, and Bertil, and I respect them for >doing a thankless job. The SSDF team is, I believe, fair, and they are a >valuable resource. But this rating cycle does exist and I don't understand why >Bertil would want to cover up the truth. > >Regards, > >Chuck
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.