Author: blass uri
Date: 13:11:39 12/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 13:36:54, Len Eisner wrote: >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. I read that you cannot do it by adding a constant. I read that the difference is smaller when the players are better. Uri
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.