Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 13:59:02 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 10:18:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 09:12:42, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On December 13, 1999 at 04:20:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>Hello Dave, >>You are correct about the number of games. It was in fact 48 games and it is so >>stated on the Certificate supplied with the computer. Here is the exact wording >>on the certificate: >>"Be it known to all, that the Fidelity MachIII Chess Challenger computer >>obtained a certified rating of 2265 by competing in 48 tournament games against >>rated players thereby achieving the classification of CHESS MASTER > > >That doesn't mean it wasn't a CRA rating of course. That could easily have been >48 CRA games. It should easily be possible to go back to USCF and ask them >about the history of this computer, to see if it actually played in several USCF >events (to total up 48 games) or if it was rated by the CRA. I personally don't >remember. I own one of these brown beasts. I do remember Larry Kaufman >repeatedly saying it was well-overrated. And in 1992 or so told larry that we >were playing it at a 60:1 time odds when testing Cray Blitz, and that we were >winning all games. That would make Cray Blitz over 500 rating points better, >not factoring in the fact that at 60:1 we were only using 1 cpu, that had we >used 16, it would have been 60*16:1 time odds. We both agreed that 2265 was >hardly realistic for the Mach III. I suspect that if you entered it in an >event today, it would probably be a decent expert (2000+). It played "solid" >but could be crushed with kingside attacks. And most simple endgames were >beyond it totally. Even when I first got it I knew that it wasn't really 2265 (CFC... similar enough to USCF.) I thought it was about 2100 or so, realistically. Dave
This page took 0.01 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.