Author: Len Eisner
Date: 08:12:15 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 08:26:16, Chuck wrote: >On December 11, 1999 at 06:13:02, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >> >>Hi! >> >>You have probably mixed up the figures for Mach4 with another program or some >>advertisment for Mach4. January 1993 the rating was 2080 six points down vs >>January 1992. >> >>Regards Bertil > >You are right, Bertil. I realize I made a mistake. Of course, now I am looking >at the SSDF list proper (unadjusted), whereas in 1993 all I had available were >"US-ratings adjusted" copies of the list, such as that published in CCR. >Obviously, they must have added 200 points to the ELO, but on the copy I have >handy it does not specify that any adjustment was made. I apologize for the >confusion. > >Chuck Let's change the question a bit. If the unadjusted ratings for older programs are so low by USCF standards, why shouldn't we add 200 points to the list. And if we do add 200 points, the ratings for the new programs become even more inflated than they currently are. For example, the Super Constellation has a 1731 rating on the SSDF list. Anyone who has played this program can tell you it's either an expert or very close to one, at least by USCF standards. I'm sure there are some folks in this forum who have experience playing the Supper Connie. It was very popular around 1987. In your opinion, is 1731 an accurate rating for it, or is it closer to 2000? Is it just me? Len
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.