Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 06:42:51 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 09:16:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 05, 1998 at 10:47:37, Steven Schwartz wrote: > >>- Steve >>P.S. Don't get me started on the Federation's decision >>to allow Action Chess official ratings. > >Well, I'll take the risk. :-) > >I think that it's not so bad to allow action chess ratings. It should >be *clear* that the ratings given are for action chess (whether this is >true or not someone who receives Chess Life will have to say). It would >also be good for the public to know that the programs are likely to be >about one class of strength weaker in a 40/2 game, though it is probably >too much to expect the magazine to actually admit it. But most people >play their machine shorter games, either blitz or active, hardly ever at >40/2, so maybe it is useful to report a rating for a somewhat quicker >speed. > >Dave Gomboc All of what you say is correct. However, no explanation of the differences between Action and Tournament chess have ever been stated by them. We answer questions all day long from people who read Chess Life and see a rating of, for instance, 2383, and when they ask us for a rating, we state 2250-2300. The next question is invariably: "Are you selling the same computer as the Chess Federation? Their's is stronger!" I think that the idea of "Official" USCF ratings based upon Action Chess was generated by manufacturers whi know that the higher the number, the better. In my opinion, it has been a totally misleading experience for the consumer. This issue has been raised numerous times, but it does not change. I am not quite sure how much of this policy is guided by the fact that the Federation is in the business of selling computer chess!?! -Steve
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.