Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:08:34 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 23:07:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Hello Bob, All of that sounds correct. The only thing is, I believe the Fidelity machines (Mach3/4) were the last ones to play in the US Open before the CRA was invented. I still believe they played the correct number of machines needed to get 40 games each in the tournament and that's how they achieved their ratings. As I remember almost all of the games were against experts/masters. I rember a write up in one of the magazines, maybe Chess Life in which the author covered some of the games and stated in his opinion the Mach 3 was lucky to achieve it's rating of 2265 but he felt the 2325 earned by the Mach 4 was about right. :-) With a 2:1 speed difference it would seem that they both hit the mark pretty close.(60 points difference for 2:1) Jim Walker
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.