Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:46:46 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 11:12:15, Len Eisner wrote:
>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
Once again you are mixing USCF and FIDE ratings I think.
Christophe
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.