Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:07:48 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 14:19:36, James T. Walker wrote: >On December 11, 1999 at 01:03:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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: > ><snip> > >>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... > >Hello Bob, >I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My memory is not good these days and >when I left Japan I threw away 15 years of Chess Life magazines because of the >extra weight in my shipping allowance so I cannot prove what I remember. I >believe the Fidelity Mach 3 & Mach 4 machines were rated in a very large >tournament of 4 or 5 rounds. Fidelity provided the necessary number of machines >to make 40 games and thus get a rating (8 machines for 5 rounds?). They were >both awarded the USCF Master title for their performances of 2325 & 2265. This >was printed on the box as I remember and a Certificate came with each machine >showing it was the first micro to be awarded the Master title by the USCF. >This was tournament time controls in a real tournament I think, not a CRA >created "Test". >Jim Walker Here is what used to happen. A commercial company would enter _multiple_ machines in something like the US Open. If they entered 4, it is very likely that one would produce a TPR significantly above 'reality'. That TPR would then be prominently displayed on the box. USCF decided that this was helping commercial sales, and saw how _they_ could benefit. They stopped allowing commercial programs to enter USCF rated events and then using the rating or results for advertising. Instead, they started the CRA (Computer Rating Agency) to rate programs. For a fee. A significant fee. Then a commercial company submitted a program and USCF played it against many players to get a pretty reasonable rating. However, rather than rating at 40/2, they chose action chess (game/60). It caused a lot of complaints, but it was probably done to make the ratings _higher_ than they should have been. The manufacturers got ever- increasing ratings, USCF was raking in money hand over fist... I don't know whether the CRA exists any longer, but Crafty is a USCF member, and before it was allowed to join, I had to agree to several USCF requirements, one being absolutely no advertising based on results obtained in USCF events.
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.