Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 01:20:09 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 09:08:34, James T. Walker wrote: >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 Yeah... my recollection was that the ratings for these two machines were based on 48 games. (I own a Mach III Master... the Designer 2265 version. It hasn't worked for years, though. Still, one day, I might try to fix it! :-) Anyway, it was quite a long time ago, and my recollection is pretty vague, so I could be completely off the mark. Dave
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.