Author: blass uri
Date: 02:12:23 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2000 at 04:14:22, David Blackman wrote: >On April 12, 2000 at 08:40:55, blass uri wrote: > >>On April 11, 2000 at 05:12:28, David Blackman wrote: >> >>>On April 11, 2000 at 00:44:34, Georg Langrath wrote: >>> >>>>1n 1980 a compterprogram had about 1300 ELO-ratimg. >>> >>>Chess 4.7 was probably around 2000 rating before 1980. 1300 might be about right >>>for the best microcomputer programs in 1980. (That's 1300 by 1980 standards. I >>>think the average 1000 player today should beat any microcomputer program from >>>1980). >> >>There are no 1000 players in Israel because the minimal rating is 1300 >> >>I remember programs like sargonII(I think it was available near 1980) >>and my impression is that it can win easily the 1000 personalities of >>chessmaster6000. > >There are players rated at 1000 (and much lower) in Australia, and in many ways >they are actually quite good players. Most of the 1000 rated players rarely make >one move blunders, know the easy endgame checkmates, and can spot elementary >tactics like forks, pins and two move checkmates (both moves check) most of the >time. In positions with no obvious tactics they will usually adopt some kind of >positive plan, although not usually a very sophisticated one. They rarely make >wild sacrifices unless there is lots of obvious compensation. Their endgames are >weak, but not as weak as the microcomputer programs of 1980. > >At 2000 and above, Australian ratings are roughly in line with FIDE and USCF. Israeli rating at 2000 and above are also roughly in line with Fide. Usually beginners do not play in tournament in Israel and players start with 1350. The level of 1350 players is dependent on the place they compete. Avoiding blunders in most of the cases is not enough against programs like sargon because you lose because one blunder that you do not avoid. I remember a game that I played against lana dambo about 10 years ago when she was 7 years old and about 1500 Israeli rating. She lost a piece because of one tactical blunder of 2 moves(she did not see the move b4 that threat the knight at c3 when the knight cannot escape because I take her bishop at c2). One tactical blunder like this blunder is enough to lose against programs like sargon. I also believe that sargon can see at 2 hours/40 moves on 1980's hardware tactical idea of more than 2 moves and usually weak players do not use most of their time so 2 hours/40 moves may help programs like sargon to get better results. Uri
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.