maro's Chess Page
maro's Home Page
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Fritz 5.0 PB34% 67MB P200 MMX 2573 27 -25 784 69% 2430
2 Nimzo 98 52MB P200 MMX 2537 32 -31 502 61% 2455
3 Hiarcs 6.0 41MB P200 MMX 2536 31 -30 552 61% 2460
4 Rebel 9.0 36MB P200 MMX 2525 31 -30 550 67% 2403
5 MChess Pro 7.1 35MB P200 MMX 2519 28 -28 630 60% 2450
6 MChess Pro 6.0 38MB P200 MMX 2514 31 -30 540 60% 2445
7 Rebel 8.0 32MB P200 MMX 2510 43 -41 293 66% 2397
8 Genius 5.0 DOS 35MB P200 MMX 2497 29 -28 614 60% 2428
9 Shredder 2.0 51MB P200 MMX 2476 34 -34 429 51% 2468
10 Hiarcs 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2448 22 -22 1015 56% 2405
10 Rebel 9.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2448 29 -29 572 52% 2436
12 Rebel 8.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2447 20 -20 1193 58% 2388
13 Hiarcs 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2432 39 -38 343 61% 2355
14 Genius 5.0 DOS Pentium 90 MHz 2428 22 -22 1044 53% 2410
15 MChess Pro 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2421 20 -20 1230 52% 2409
16 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2408 31 -30 540 60% 2336
17 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2407 27 -26 719 62% 2320
17 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2407 26 -25 759 62% 2318
19 Genius 4.0 DOS Pentium 90 MHz 2406 24 -24 877 61% 2328
20 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2403 26 -25 749 61% 2322
21 Junior 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2395 26 -27 692 46% 2420
22 Hiarcs 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2394 25 -25 766 55% 2359
23 Shredder 1.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2388 59 -58 145 53% 2369
24 Chessmaster 5000 Pentium 90 MHz 2387 49 -45 240 67% 2262
25 Nimzo 3.5 Pentium 90 MHz 2386 26 -26 721 49% 2392
26 Nimzo 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2381 26 -25 767 58% 2323
27 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2375 30 -30 545 56% 2330
28 R30 v. 2.5 2372 44 -42 283 66% 2253
29 Genius 4.0 DOS 486/50-66 MHz 2369 23 -23 880 50% 2369
30 Junior 3.3-3.5 Pentium 90 MHz 2364 31 -31 496 48% 2379
31 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2357 24 -23 910 62% 2269
32 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2356 29 -29 578 52% 2340
33 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2347 21 -21 1075 48% 2364
34 Mephisto Genius 2.0 486/50-66 MHz 2337 23 -23 917 58% 2277
35 Fritz 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2335 40 -39 324 60% 2264
36 WChess 1.06 Pentium 90 MHz 2330 25 -25 780 46% 2361
36 MChess Pro 5.0 486/50-66 MHz 2330 26 -26 691 50% 2332
38 Rebel 7.0 486/50-66 MHz 2329 26 -26 737 50% 2331
39 Kallisto 1.98 Pentium 90 MHz 2324 24 -24 870 43% 2372
40 MChess Pro 4.0 486/50-66 MHz 2311 24 -24 846 53% 2287
41 Chess Machine 30-32 MHz Schröder 3.1 2302 32 -30 546 68% 2170
42 WChess 1.03 486/50-66 MHz 2300 27 -27 677 49% 2306
43 Rebel 6.0 486/50-66 MHz 2298 24 -23 887 55% 2264
43 Hiarcs 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2298 24 -24 865 50% 2295
45 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2297 47 -46 228 57% 2251
46 Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30 off 2294 21 -20 1202 64% 2193
47 Chessmaster 4000 486/50-66 MHz 2292 34 -33 462 66% 2172
48 Chess Genius 1.0 486/50-66 MHz 2283 23 -23 931 54% 2256
49 Rebel Decade Pentium 90 MHz 2277 29 -30 563 45% 2315
50 Chess Machine 30 MHz Schröder 3.0 2274 62 -55 168 73% 2102
51 Mephisto Gideon Pro 486/50-66 MHz 2271 35 -34 421 62% 2183
52 MChess Pro 3.5 486/50-66 MHz 2269 23 -22 958 51% 2260
53 MChess Pro 3.12 486/50-66 MHz 2265 36 -34 438 69% 2122
54 Fritz 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2259 20 -20 1206 46% 2287
55 Mephisto Lyon 68030 36 MHz 2252 28 -27 716 68% 2117
56 Chess Genius 1.0 486/33 MHz 2241 32 -32 463 50% 2241
57 Mephisto Portorose 68030 36 MHz 2238 40 -36 407 77% 2028
58 Mephisto Vancouver 68030 36 MHz 2227 35 -33 471 71% 2070
59 MChess Pro 3.12 486/33 MHz 2226 50 -48 208 60% 2152
60 Berlin Pro 68 020 24 MHz 2225 24 -24 850 58% 2170
61 Kasparov SPARC 20 MHz 2223 24 -24 845 48% 2235
62 Comet32 Pentium 90 MHz 2213 25 -27 830 26% 2399
63 Kallisto 1.82-1.83 486/50-66 MHz 2212 21 -22 1077 41% 2274
64 Mephisto RISC 1 MB ARM 2 14 MHz 2200 21 -20 1174 56% 2158
64 Hiarcs Master 2.0 486/33 MHz 2200 46 -46 229 51% 2191
66 MChess 1.1-1.71 486/33 MHz 2193 44 -40 326 74% 2014
66 Saitek RISC 2500 ARM2 14 MHz 128K 2193 21 -21 1116 55% 2159
66 Chess Machine Schröder 512K ARM2 16MHz 2193 27 -26 703 62% 2109
69 Mephisto Montreux ARM 14 MHz 512K 2187 32 -30 589 73% 2015
70 Chess Machine The King 512K ARM2 16MHz 2174 32 -32 473 55% 2136
71 Mephisto Vancouver 68020 12 MHz 2159 23 -22 1001 66% 2046
72 Mephisto Lyon 68020 12 MHz 2150 19 -18 1442 59% 2087
73 Socrates 3.0 486/33 MHz 2140 49 -50 203 47% 2161
74 Fritz 2.0 486/33 MHz 2130 30 -31 527 45% 2164
75 Mephisto Portorose 68020 12 MHz 2127 26 -24 896 73% 1956
76 M Chess 1.1-1.71 386/25-33 MHz 2126 36 -35 408 65% 2017
77 Sapphire II 2125 43 -40 308 70% 1980
78 Fidelity Elite 68030 32 MHz (vers.9) 2122 31 -30 521 60% 2049
79 Mephisto Berlin 68 000 12 MHz 2116 23 -22 966 57% 2064
80 Mephisto Lyon 68000 12 MHz 2104 21 -21 1130 58% 2050
81 Mephisto Vancouver 68000 12 MHz 2103 22 -21 1062 56% 2062
82 Mephisto MM 4 Turbo Kit 6502 16 MHz 2093 46 -42 292 73% 1918
83 Novag Sapphire H8 10 MHz 2089 22 -22 994 48% 2107
84 Milano Pro SH7000 20 MHz 2086 39 -37 369 68% 1952
85 Fidelity Mach IV 68020 20 MHz 2074 18 -18 1466 49% 2083
86 Mephisto Almeria 68020 12 MHz 2073 42 -40 305 62% 1985
87 Hiarcs Master 1.0 486/33 MHz 2070 48 -48 214 48% 2086
88 Mephisto Portorose 68000 12 MHz 2045 25 -24 827 62% 1961
89 Mephisto Polgar 6502 10 MHz 2042 43 -41 283 59% 1979
90 Fritz 1.0 486/33 MHz 2041 48 -47 215 55% 2008
91 Gandalf 2.1 Pentium 90 MHz 2039 46 -52 236 27% 2213
92 Fidelity Elite 68000 x 2 (vers. 5) 2037 49 -48 209 57% 1987
93 Nimzo 2.2.1 486/33 MHz 2033 46 -47 229 42% 2088
94 Mephisto Roma 68020 14 MHz 2030 27 -26 712 65% 1919
94 Rex Chess 2.3 386/25-33 MHz 2030 65 -62 126 59% 1964
96 Zarkov 3.0 486/25-33 MHz 2029 46 -48 232 39% 2108
97 Mephisto Dallas 68020 14 MHz 2023 35 -32 492 72% 1861
98 Mephisto Almeria 68000 12 MHz 2021 32 -30 534 67% 1898
99 Zarkov 2.5 386/25-33 MHz 2020 56 -53 168 61% 1941
100 Kasparov Brute Force H8 10 MHz 2018 23 -23 906 44% 2058
101 Fritz 1.0 386/25-33 MHz 2007 66 -67 113 46% 2038
102 Novag Diablo 68000 16 MHz 2005 21 -21 1123 41% 2071
103 Fidelity Mach III 68000 16 MHz 1993 14 -14 2410 52% 1980
104 Complete Chess System 486/33 MHz 1984 47 -47 221 47% 2006
105 Kasparov President/GK-2100 H8 10 MHz 1979 29 -29 579 46% 2005
106 Mephisto MM 5 6502 5 MHz 1975 19 -19 1345 47% 1993
107 Mephisto Dallas 68000 12 MHz 1971 21 -20 1177 61% 1894
108 Mephisto Polgar 6502 5 MHz 1970 17 -17 1773 41% 2035
108 Mephisto Roma 68000 12 MHz 1970 18 -18 1519 56% 1927
110 Mephisto Milano 6502 5 MHz 1964 24 -24 860 41% 2028
111 Zarkov 2.6 386/25-33 MHz 1960 64 -62 125 56% 1917
111 Novag Super Expert C 6502 6 MHz Sel 5 1960 18 -18 1545 46% 1990
113 Mephisto Academy 6502 5 MHz 1939 18 -18 1535 44% 1982
114 Chessmaster 3000 386/25-33 MHz 1932 68 -74 103 36% 2031
115 Rex Chess 2.3 386/16-20 MHz 1930 53 -53 174 49% 1936
116 Saitek Leonardo Maestro B 6502 18 MHz 1928 73 -67 105 62% 1842
117 Mephisto Amsterdam 68000 12 MHz 1927 22 -22 1020 58% 1873
118 Novag Super Expert B 6502 6 MHz sel 4 1919 29 -29 564 48% 1935
119 Mephisto Mega IV 6502 4.9 MHz 1916 17 -18 1584 44% 1960
119 Saitek Maestro D 6502 10 MHz 1916 26 -26 736 51% 1909
121 Fidelity Excel Mach IIc 68000 12 MHz 1915 23 -23 955 50% 1911
122 Novag Expert Turbo Kit 6502 16 MHz 1910 67 -63 120 61% 1829
123 Mephisto MM 4 6502 5 MHz 1904 19 -19 1288 51% 1900
124 Fidelity Travel Master H8/330 10 MHz 1897 65 -79 123 22% 2112
124 Mephisto Modena 6502 4 MHz 1897 27 -28 655 40% 1968
126 Kasparov GK-2000 H8 10 MHz 1896 29 -29 593 42% 1952
127 Psion Atari 68000 8 MHz 1882 18 -18 1487 44% 1928
128 CXG Sphinx Galaxy 6502 4 MHz 1880 17 -17 1710 37% 1974
129 Novag Ruby H8 10 MHz 1879 30 -30 545 42% 1934
130 Fidelity Excel Mach IIa 68000 12 MHz 1878 46 -47 226 47% 1898
131 Saitek Turboking II 6502 5 MHz 1868 23 -23 963 37% 1964
132 Conchess Plymate Victoria 6502 5.5 MHz 1867 26 -27 701 40% 1941
133 Fidelity Excel Club 68000 12 MHz 1857 23 -23 931 51% 1849
134 Mephisto Mega IV Brute Force 1847 35 -36 402 38% 1930
135 Novag Super Expert/Forte A 6502 5 MHz 1837 19 -19 1358 38% 1923
136 Fidelity Par Excellence 6502 5 MHz 1835 22 -22 1022 48% 1846
136 Fidelity Avant Garde 6502 5 MHz 1835 20 -20 1196 46% 1866
138 Mephisto Rebell 6502 5 MHz 1824 19 -19 1393 38% 1909
139 Saitek Stratos/Analys B 6502 6 MHz 1820 20 -21 1213 38% 1908
140 Mephisto Super Mondial 6502 4 MHz 1819 19 -19 1375 37% 1914
141 Novag Forte B 6502 5 MHz 1816 24 -24 837 44% 1860
142 Saitek Leonardo Maestro A 6502 6 MHz 1811 30 -30 547 45% 1846
143 Novag Forte A 6502 5 MHz 1809 22 -22 964 48% 1822
144 Conchess Plymate 6502 5.5 MHz 1808 15 -16 2040 40% 1881
145 Saitek Simultano/Corona C 6502 5 MHz 1806 23 -24 969 33% 1932
146 Fidelity Excellence 6502 4 MHz 1801 18 -18 1565 43% 1852
147 Novag Expert 6502 4 MHz 1788 24 -24 843 42% 1847
148 Fidelity Elegance 6502 3.6 MHz 1781 40 -40 303 54% 1752
149 Conchess Plymate 6502 4 MHz 1780 39 -38 333 55% 1748
150 Mephisto MM 2 6502 3.7 MHz 1773 49 -48 208 52% 1756
151 Saitek Turbostar 432 6502 4 MHz 1765 22 -22 1005 45% 1802
152 Fidelity Excellence 6502 3 MHz 1757 22 -23 960 42% 1815
153 Saitek Kasparov Blitz 1734 45 -47 239 37% 1825
153 Novag Super Nova 1734 37 -38 350 40% 1803
155 Novag Super Constellation 6502 4 MHz 1731 18 -18 1626 35% 1840
156 Conchess Glasgow 6502 4 MHz 1720 39 -39 327 50% 1722
157 Chessplayer 2150 Atari/Amiga 1714 58 -63 146 33% 1837
158 The Final Chesscard 6502 5 MHz 1700 57 -64 156 27% 1872
159 Novag Super VIP 1688 53 -58 174 32% 1817
160 Chessmaster 2100 Amiga 68000 1687 65 -76 120 25% 1874
161 Mephisto Europa 1683 50 -52 190 42% 1741
162 Saitek Superstar 36K 6502 2 MHz 1679 23 -24 954 31% 1819
163 Fidelity Elite A/S 6502 3.2 MHz 1678 22 -23 1043 28% 1842
164 Chess Champion 2175 Atari/Amiga 1673 56 -62 157 30% 1822
165 Conchess Glasgow 6502 2 MHz 1667 24 -25 855 34% 1782
166 Novag Quattro 6502 4 MHz 1663 30 -31 560 33% 1790
167 Fidelity Prestige 6502 4 MHz 1661 64 -66 118 44% 1703
168 Chessmaster 2000 Atari 68000 8 MHz 1654 41 -45 312 25% 1841
169 Novag Constellation 6502 3.6 MHz 1648 31 -32 504 41% 1715
170 Novag Constellation Primo 1638 57 -59 149 44% 1683
171 Novag Constellation 6502 2 MHz 1597 32 -33 479 35% 1706
172 CXG Super Enterprise 1563 36 -39 386 28% 1727
Rating : ELO rating
+/- : deviation
Games : number of games played
Won : percentage of games won
Oppo : medium opponent ELO rating
By Thoralf Karlsson, thoralf.karlsson@mailbox.swipnet.se, Chairman of the SSDF
Unfortunately we don't have any new programs or chess computers on this list. But we have played 1.261 games in order to get more reliable ratings for the available programs. Fritz 5.0 P200 MMX is still number one on the list, but it's rating has gone down 16 points. The difference between the first and second program has diminished from 55 to 36 points.
Several of the programs in the upper part of the list have lost a few points. Shredder 2.0 has suffered the biggest loss with 24 points down. Sapphire II has gone up 15 points, and is now 36 points higher than it's predecessor.
As can be seen, the rating list contains some new information. For the programs tested on P200 MMX, the average amount of used RAM is shown. It can be seen that some of the older programs have had slightly more than 32 MB RAM, that a couple of programs have used about 50 MB and that Fritz 5.0 has had little more than 64 MB RAM in average. More about that further down.
For Fritz 5.0 you can see in how many percent of the games the opening book PowerBook has been used. This opening book is sold separately. In 520 of the 784 games the ordinary book fritz5.ctg has been active, and PowerBook has been used in the other 264 games. If you make a list with only the 520 games with the standard opening book, Fritz 5.0 gets 2561. With only the 264 PowerBook-games, Fritz 5.0 would receive 2599. The difference is 38 points. This could be interpreted to show that PowerBook raises the playing strength. But the margin of error is 30 and 45 points respectively. Further, the games have been played against different opponents, which makes a comparison more difficult.
At the moment we are playing with CometA90 P200 MMX and Mephisto Atlanta. In a short time we will start to test Kallisto II and later we will play with Junior 5.0 and probably also with CST. A week ago we recived the danish program Gandalf 3. If time permits we will try to establish it's playing strength against other programs. Later this year we have been promised to receive Hiarcs 7.0, MChess Pro 8.0 and a new Nimzo-version.
Next rating list is expected to be released in early August.
Since the arrival of the rating list dated 98-02-22, where Fritz 5.0 unexpectedly received a rating 55 points ahead of it's competitors, SSDF has been the target of heavy attacks from various sources. The critics have in many cases been connected with some of the other strong programs.
The essence of the criticism has been that SSDF has given Fritz 5.0 an unfair advantage in various ways, and that this program isn't worth it's high rating. Although many of the arguments and allegations have disappeared from the debate now, I would like to comment on the most important issues concerning Fritz 5.0 and it's rating.
Fritz 5.0-versions
It was claimed that SSDF didn't play with a commercially available version of the program. That's not true. The chess engine which we have tested has been for sale since November 97, and has sometimes been called the Paris version. Owners of the original Fritz 5 version (sold summer 97 until October 97) can purchase an upgrade from ChessBase. SSDF does not know if there is any difference in playing strength between the original version and the one which has been for sale since November 97.
Our games are published on Tony Hedlunds website (new address: http://home.interact.se/~w100107/welcome.htm ) and several persons have verified that they can reproduce the played games with their own Fritz 5 versions.
PowerBook
Chess programs often have different opening books, for example a more narrow tournament book and a wider and larger book with more variety. SSDF has had the policy to use the opening book, which the programmer recommends. For Fritz 5.0 ChessBase recommended the opening book named PowerBook. It has been said that this opening book isn't for sale, but that's not true. It is sold separately.
It was our intention to use PowerBook consistently. Due to small hard disks, misunderstandings and failings to load the PowerBook, it was only used in 18% of the games until February 22nd and in 34% of the games until now. Some persons have the opinion that we should only use opening books which are delivered together with the program. For us the important thing is that the used opening book is for sale and that it is evident from the list or the comments which book we have used. If our testing capacity were larger it would be a good idea to test programs with different opening books, but that's normally not possible.
64 MB RAM
It has been said that Fritz 5.0 had access to 64 MB RAM whereas the other programs only had 16 or 32 MB RAM. This is partly true and partly untrue. First, no program tested on P200 MMX has had only 16 MB. When we started to use this hardware for more than a year ago, we decided to use at least 32 MB RAM. We have never had an upper limit for the amount of RAM. If one of the testers bought more RAM because
he needed it, this didn't make us disqualify his games. Since a doubling of the hashtables has increased the speed about 6-7%, something which could give 4-5 additional rating points, we haven't bothered about it. Programs tested early in a "hardware cycle" (486/33, 486/66, P90) has always in average had less RAM memory than those tested later on.
There are practical and economical reasons for this. Either you should try to force all testers to use for example 4 or 8 MB RAM during 2-3 years, or you should demand that all testers in spite of very high costs bought a very large RAM memory from the beginning. Neither alternative has seemed to be reasonable with the RAM prices during the nineties. (Note that SSDF doesn't have money to sponsor the hardware which the tester owns and uses.)
64 MB RAM was first used during the summer of 97. Hiarcs 6.0 was the first program to have this possible benefit. Until now all programs on P200 MMX except Rebel 8.0 partially has had access to 64 MB RAM. The two programs which we tested just before Fritz 5.0 had had more than 32 MB of RAM (mostly 64 MB) in more than 60% of the games in the list from February 22nd.
Thus,when we started to play automatically with Fritz 5.0, we were in a process of upgrading our RAM memories from 32 to 64 MB RAM. In this situation I judged it to be acceptable that Fritz 5.0 was tested solely with 64 MB RAM. Normally we should have tested it with the mixture of different RAM sizes which were available at that time, but the autoplayer only worked with 64 MB RAM. We could of course have demanded that the autoplayer should be reprogrammed, but since in our opinion it was only a question of a few points, it wasn't worth delaying the testing because of this. By the way, upgrading from 32 to 64 MB RAM costs only about 40 US dollars.
I have asked the programmers about the speed difference between 32 and 64 MB RAM for their programs. None of them has claimed that it would be be a question of more than a few points, and our own tests supports that. It might be possible that Fritz 5.0 can benefit more from larger hash tables than other programs. But the figures differs. One investigation indicates that a doubling would in average give a speed increase of 18%, whereas another shows the usual 6-7%. But if your comparison is made with 64 MB RAM as the starting point, the disadvantage for the other programs would not be larger than 1-4 points.
It has been claimed that SSDF received hardware from ChessBase. That is not correct. We were offered to borrow a machine with 128 MB RAM, but declined this offering since only Fritz 5.0 and no other programs would have had the possibility to be tested with this machine.
In this table you can see which RAM sizes the different programs have used until the latest rating list from 09-JUN-1998:
| 96 MB | 64 MB | 48 MB | 32 MB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rebel 8.0 | 0% | 0,0% | 0,0% | 100,0% |
| MChess Pro 7.1 | 0,0% | 6,3% | 3,2% | 90,5% |
| Genius 5.0 | 0,0% | 7,8% | 3,6% | 88,6% |
| Rebel 9.0 | 0,0% | 10,2% | 7,3% | 82,5% |
| MChess Pro 6.0 | 0,0% | 15,6% | 0,0% | 84,4% |
| Hiarcs 6.0 | 0,0% | 26,8% | 3,6% | 69,6% |
| Shredder 2.0 | 4,7% | 43,8% | 14,0% | 37,5% |
| Nimzo 98 | 0,0% | 59,6% | 3,9% | 36,5% |
| Fritz 5.0 | 10,2% | 89,8% | 0,0% | 0,0% |
With 48 MB RAM Shredder 2.0 can have the same size on it's hash- and evaluationtables as is recommended for 64 MB RAM. So it appears that 48 MB here is as good as 64 MB. It's doubtful whether 96 MB really has been an advantage for the two programs which partially have used it. For the commonly used motherboards for P200 MMX it seems that the cache-memory cannot handle more than 64 MB RAM. More RAM than 64 MB could even slow things down. 96 MB RAM is not used any longer.
Since several months all test machines have 64 MB RAM. This, and only this, size will be used together with P200 MMX in the future. All new programs will be tested only with 64 MB RAM. As we continue to play more games also with the older programs, the average RAM size will slowly come closer to 64 MB RAM.
Problems may arise when it's time to change the hardware. If we for example next year start to use Pentium II 450 MHz, should we then choose 64, 128 or perhaps 256 MB? 64 MB would probably suit the economy of the testers best, but it might seem much too small two years later. If we decide to make 256 MB RAM the standard, it might have the effect that most testers refrain from buying a new PC. Or should we choose 64 MB RAM as minimum and let the tester buy more RAM when prices eventually go down? Having the same RAM size during the whole hardware-cycle is of course ideal, and if possible we will try to have it so. But we don't make any binding decisions about that today.
Autoplayer cheating?
For some time it was claimed that Fritz 5's autoplayer cheated, intentionally or unintentionally. It seems clear that at least is possible to do some kind of cheating, for example by forcing the opponent to make it's move immediately. But has it been done? Ed Schröder made a special version of Rebel 9, in which a logfile
recorded the commands which were sent between the computers. Enrique Irazoqui then tested Fritz 5.0 and other programs against this Rebel version, using the AUTO232 protocol. Their conclusion was that nothing strange happened and that the autoplayer was "clean"! Thereby the hypothesis of cheating can be dismissed.
Not generally available autoplayer
The autoplayer which SSDF has used for testing Fritz 5.0, is not sold together with the program and cannot be purchased separately. The reason for this seems to be that ChessBase want to make it more difficult for the competing programmers to make opening book preparations against Fritz. (ChessBase claims that Fritz 5.0 in it's
opening books uses only moves played in human tournaments or known theoretical lines, and that no special preparations have been made against the other chess programs.)
It has been said that it is unfair that ChessBase can play automatically against the other programs but that the other programmers cannot do the same against Fritz 5.0. It's still possible to play manual games, but you need someone who transfers the moves, and he might want to be payed for it. Practically speaking it will also take longer time, since you'll probably not find someone willing to do this work during nights.
So if playing games against the competitors is part of the work with a new program (and that is probably the case for most programmers), the production cost will be higher if you cannot play automatically against Fritz 5.0. I don't know against how many other programs the chess programmers play, but I guess against 5 - 10. If so, 10-20% of the games cost more to play.
The primary goal for the SSDF rating list is to provide information about the relative strength of chess programs. Whether the production costs have been somewhat higher or lower is no primary concern for us.
We understand that the rating list can be looked upon as a kind of world championship for chess programs, and in such an event the conditions should be fair and equal. The question is how to define fairness. Equal hardware, if possible the same RAM size, roughly the same amount of games against the same opponents are fair demands.
But should the conditions for making the chess program be regulated by SSDF? Some programmers work full time, others make their program during evenings and weekends. Is that fair? Some are working alone, others have several employees who help them. Is that fair? Some have better economy and can afford more PCs for automatic play and stronger chess players as advisors. Should SSDF make rules here?
So far I haven't found strong enough theoretical arguments for a rule stating that SSDF in the future would only test programs which have generally available autoplayers. We have discussed the possibility of such a rule just for pragmatical reasons. Our wish has always been to include all of the strongest programs in our list. But as it seems now this will not be the case in the future, no matter what decision we make. Whether one of the alternatives would give us more programs to play with than the other is an open question. (Either SSDF would refuse to play with programs without autoplayers, like Fritz 6.0(?), Virtual Chess, CM6000(?) and all chess computers, or in the other case some programmers would disable the autoplayers in their coming programs in order to make it impossible or very difficult for SSDF to test them.)
The ideal solution for SSDF would have been that ChessBase released their autoplayer for Fritz 5.0, something which they promised to do (under certain conditions). I have argued with ChessBase that these conditions are fulfilled, but as it seems they will not release the autoplayer for Fritz 5.0. They will however release the autoplayer for the coming engines Junior 5.0, Nimzo and Crafty. Nothing was said about Fritz 6.0.
Concluding remarks
Much more could be said, but then the rating list would be even more delayed! In our swedish magazine PLY more details are discussed. There the members of SSDF are invited to present their opinions.
For the time being we continue as before, with the exception that we now inform about RAM sizes and usage of separately sold opening books. And we will use only 64 MB RAM in the future, for programs tested on P200 MMX.
As it seems now we will continue with the rating list as long as we have willing testers and programs to play with. If the chess programmers make it impossible for us to play with their chess programs, then we have to choose another hobby.
Finally I would like to thank all those who have defended SSDF during the last months!! And I would also like to thank those who have sent emails expressing their support and their wish for the continued publication of the rating list!
maro's Chess Pagemaro's Home Page
Get your own Free Home Page