Author: Tina Long
Date: 22:05:46 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 Hi Len, my opinion only, based on playing chess: Novag Super Constellation, at 40 moves in 120 minutes, is only about 1700-1800 ELO. In the middlegame it often just got lost, and if I could hold even until the endgame then it just fell apart. Now, 5 minute blitz! ouch 2200-2300 ELO. As I say, only my opinion. Tina Long
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.