Author: Steve B
Date: 09:55:02 07/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
>I think the CRA was a well intentioned idea, but was perverted by the USCF greed >for advertisers' money. When the USCF allowed eight machines from the same >manufacturer to compete at the same time in a single event, it helped lead to >the antipathy by many human players against any form of computer participation. >I am sure of this, because during that time I was hearing plenty of supporting >comments from humans as I was entering my old program Spector in USCF events. > >It was in 1967 that Richard Greenblatt started the tradition of entering >non-commercial programs in otherwise human events. It was a fine and useful >tradition until the USCF helped kill it with the CRA. >>the USCF and Fidelity were hardly the only ones cheating like this cant argue with anything you say ,Steve but you know from my admittedly narrow view point,i never cared much for what the ratings of a computer were as a collector i only wanted to collect them as they came out available funds were my only limitation and concern but of course i realize that this is not common and most(if not everyone else)were highly motivated by playing strength in making their purchasing decisions and so an inflated rating meant more sales >>is only a matter of time before a new group steps in with their own OTB rating >service do you think so? i have followed the particularly acrimonious recent election for months now i have been a card carrying member of the USCF for over three decades and i seem to recall several controversies over the years but not to this extent Best 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.