Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:03:58 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 18:27:51, Len Eisner wrote: >On December 09, 1999 at 22:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 22:11:00, Len Eisner wrote: >> >>>The older programs on the SSDF list are underrated and the newer ones are >>>overrated. Why is that? >>> >>>Bob Hyatt's view is that the best of the current programs are about 2450. That >>>is at least 200 points less than their SSDF ratings. >>> >>>The older programs seem to be underrated by about as much as the new ones are >>>overrated. For example, the Fidelity Mach IV is only rated 2074 when it should >>>be over 2250. The old Novag Super Constellation is only 1731. I know it was at >>>least 200 points stronger than that. >>> >>>Len >> >> >>I don't think the mach iv was anywhere near 2250. It was at action chess >>(game/30/game/60) but not 40/2 >> >>What I think has happened is that newer programs blow older ones out, and >>artificially inflate the newer program ratings, and artificially deflate older >>program ratings... >> >>The older programs are not played against each other any longer, and the only >>way their ratings can go is down... > > >My guess is the Mach IV could achieve a USCF master rating today playing OTB >games at 40/2. Also, if memory serves, the Mach IV's CRA test was at tournament >time controls. > >Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Mach IV is a good program by today's >standards. In fact, it was never fun to play because of its "computer-like" >style. But I do think it played well enough tactically to hold its own at the >USCF master level. > >Len CRA _never_ used tournament time controls. They played game/60 time controls. It was a _huge_ controversy at the time, where everyone felt that the USCF did this to inflate the ratings a bit. This made the manufacturers happy since the CRA rating was always published on the outside of the packaging. I can guarantee you that the Mach III was _not_ a 2265 player at 40/2. I have one in my office. The mach IV was somewhat faster but was _not_ 2300+ at 40/2. They were good. But not that good. I learned to thrash my Mach III pretty regularly, so long as I avoided games so fast that tactics were overlooked by human frailty. :) Both were tactically not bad... but positionally they had problems, and the endgame was horrible compared to today's programs... No clue about outside passed pawns, or majorities... or king safety... Once you learned the Stonewall as white, you wouldn't lose against them again with white...
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.