Author: Len Eisner
Date: 09:24:43 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 01:03:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 10, 1999 at 18:27:51, Len Eisner wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 22:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 1999 at 22:11:00, Len Eisner wrote: >>> >>>>The older programs on the SSDF list are underrated and the newer ones are >>>>overrated. Why is that? >>>> >>>>Bob Hyatt's view is that the best of the current programs are about 2450. That >>>>is at least 200 points less than their SSDF ratings. >>>> >>>>The older programs seem to be underrated by about as much as the new ones are >>>>overrated. For example, the Fidelity Mach IV is only rated 2074 when it should >>>>be over 2250. The old Novag Super Constellation is only 1731. I know it was at >>>>least 200 points stronger than that. >>>> >>>>Len >>> >>> >>>I don't think the mach iv was anywhere near 2250. It was at action chess >>>(game/30/game/60) but not 40/2 >>> >>>What I think has happened is that newer programs blow older ones out, and >>>artificially inflate the newer program ratings, and artificially deflate older >>>program ratings... >>> >>>The older programs are not played against each other any longer, and the only >>>way their ratings can go is down... >> >> >>My guess is the Mach IV could achieve a USCF master rating today playing OTB >>games at 40/2. Also, if memory serves, the Mach IV's CRA test was at tournament >>time controls. >> >>Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Mach IV is a good program by today's >>standards. In fact, it was never fun to play because of its "computer-like" >>style. But I do think it played well enough tactically to hold its own at the >>USCF master level. >> >>Len > > >CRA _never_ used tournament time controls. They played game/60 time controls. >It was a _huge_ controversy at the time, where everyone felt that the USCF did >this to inflate the ratings a bit. This made the manufacturers happy since the >CRA rating was always published on the outside of the packaging. I can >guarantee you that the Mach III was _not_ a 2265 player at 40/2. I have one >in my office. The mach IV was somewhat faster but was _not_ 2300+ at 40/2. >They were good. But not that good. I learned to thrash my Mach III pretty >regularly, so long as I avoided games so fast that tactics were overlooked by >human frailty. :) > > >Both were tactically not bad... but positionally they had problems, and the >endgame was horrible compared to today's programs... No clue about outside >passed pawns, or majorities... or king safety... Once you learned the >Stonewall as white, you wouldn't lose against them again with white... I believe the time control for the CRA Mach IV test was 30 moves in 90 minutes. Perhaps someone could confirm this one way or the other. 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.