Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:34:02 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >The first game of fruit with original book that I read in this forum had clearly >better results and I remember from this forum(not from the ssdf results) >something like 28-14 for fruit2.2 against fritz9 in the time fruit came out. > >Uri Note also that the difference based on the selective search list between fritz and shredder is only 18 elo. change in condition: yes ponder/no ponder may be clearly enough to explain difference of 20 elo even without statistical error. My point is that it is only a guess that Fritz9 is better than Shredder9 if enough games are played and we have no evidence that it is the case for ssdf conditions. 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.