Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:58:06 11/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 1999 at 12:39:35, Peter Hegger wrote: >On November 04, 1999 at 00:08:58, Robert C. Maddox wrote: > >>On November 03, 1999 at 08:36:13, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>Hi all, >>>I bought a Novag Diamond tabletop computer a couple of years back. Their were 2 >>>reasons for my purchase. 1) I needed a portable machine. 2) My old "Fidelity >>>master 2265" (supposedly action rated by the Computer rating agency of the USCF) >>>was obviously no where near 2265 action rated on it's best day. <snip> >> >>I understood that the 2265 was NOT an action rating, but 40/120. >> >>Perhaps you have a knack for playing computers. >> >>Robert > >Thanks for the info, for some reason I always thought it was an action rating on >the Fidelity. I did a little digging around and found that the ssdf has rated >the "mach 3 master". It's #124 on the list, rated 1993. This is a full 272 >difference from the CRA ratings at the same time levels. I could see them being >50 or even 100 points different but 272 seems a bit of a stretch. After playing >the fidelity hundreds of times I'd have to say that the ssdf rating is by far >the most accurate of the 2. >It almost makes me wonder if the machine which was initially rated at 2265 was a >souped up model or a one off demo designed to be around just long enough to get >it's rating. This would be very dishonest of Fidelity but how else does one >explain away a 272 point rating gap? Since Fidelity is no longer around I guess >we'll never know. >Regards, >Peter Hello Peter, I think the Mach 3 got it's rating by playing 40 games in a against humans. There was more than one machine on hand and they were standard commercial machines. At the same time the Mach 4 got the 2325 rating. Which seemed "Normal" since it was about 2 x faster than the Mach 3. These were USCF ratings at 40/2 as I recall. Commercially available "Strong" computers were still relatively new then and I think most people had very little experience playing computers then. It's different now and I suspect it would not get the same rating today under the same conditions. Jim Walker
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.