Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 21:06:12 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 23:35:53, Chuck wrote:
>In answer to your question, Enrique, of how many games the Mach IV had played on
>the 1993 list I quoted, I do not know, that stat wasn't on the list I dug up.
>But I had had one for at least two years by that time and I know it was on the
>list the whole time I had it. If you might remember, it received a USCF rating
>of 2325 way back then (circa 1991).
But the drop of 200 points in the SSDF list can be due to few games when they
gave the 2280 to Mach IV. I don't know if they played few games by them with
this machine, but it is a plausible explanation. Maybe Bertil will tell us
tomorrow.
I checked ratings of Rebel 8 and Mchess 6 on P200MMX and P90 over the last 2 1/2
years and I don't see any significant drop in rating.
11/99 5/97
R8 P200MMX 2510 2516
R8 P90 2439 (6/99) 2465
M6 P200MMX 2505 2536 (9/97)
M6 P90 2412 2432
The small decreases can be easily attributed to book and engine tuning by the
opponents. It could even be random, since it happens within the margin of error.
I mean with this that I don't see variations in ratings over time due to the
factors that have been mentioned in this thread.
Enrique
>Chuck
>
>
>On December 10, 1999 at 23:23:44, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>>On December 10, 1999 at 22:53:41, Len Eisner wrote:
>>
>>>On December 10, 1999 at 22:26:43, Chuck wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 10, 1999 at 20:16:13, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 10, 1999 at 20:01:28, Chuck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it is very easy to prove that Robert is right here. It is very
>>>>>>noticeable. I once played out a 40/2 match between a Mach IV and a Mephisto
>>>>>>Polgar, the Mach IV one 10-2. The two machines are very close in strength,
>>>>>>probably within 100-150 points. But playing many games and watching these two
>>>>>>computers evaluate positions, it was evident that the speed of the Mach IV
>>>>>>(compared to the Polgars 5 Mhz) gave it a big tactical advantage. Head-to-head
>>>>>>this seems to be magnified. I played an old MChess against the Mach IV and it
>>>>>>won 11-1. Wow, what results. The point is, when a progam plays another which is
>>>>>>on significantly slower hardware, the faster program is going to win big and
>>>>>>it's rating will be inflated. Two years later, when it becomes the one with slow
>>>>>>hardware, it will be the one getting pounded, and it's rating will go down. I
>>>>>>think at one time the Mach IV was on the SSDF list at around 2200, but late in
>>>>>>it's life it dropped to below 2100.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chuck
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>As checked houndreds of times this is completely wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Play two-houndred games and the level should probably be accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertil SSDF
>>>>
>>>>Then explain to me how the Mach IV had a SSDF rating of 2282 in January 1993 but
>>>>now has a SSDF rating of 2074!?!
>>
>>How many games did it play by 1/93 before getting the 2282 rating?
>>
>>Enrique
>>
>>>>Chuck
>>>
>>>Yes, that is the question, and it applies to the other old programs too. If
>>>computers are anything, they are consistant, so the Mach IV would play exactly
>>>the same today as it did in 1993, yet its rating is over 200 points lower.
>>>
>>>Len
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.