Author: Len Eisner
Date: 10:36:54 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 12:46:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 No, I'm not confusing them. I understand there are three separate lists: USCF FIDE, and SSDF. I'm just pointing out that the older programs on the SSDF list seem to be rated too low, at least by USCF standards. If you add some number to the SSDF ratings to get a USCF equivalent, then it would bring the old computers in line with my expectations, but the newer ones would be too high. If you say it is not possible to compare the lists, then I have to question the accuracy of the SSDF ratings, even from a relative perspective. You can compare FIDE and USCF ratings by adding a constant, let's say 50 points for the sake of argument. If you can't do that with the SSDF list, then something is wrong. 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.