I had a talk with someone about this and came up with an interesting concept.Let's take CM 9000 which is rated at 2780 on its highest level. It played a 4 game match against GM Larry C and beat him 2.5-1.5 I believe but one of those games should have been a win for him so i'll go 2-2. GM Larry C is around 2600-2700 so lets go with 2700. So CM is rated 2700 OTB or 80 points less then its CM rating indicates.
Now the ssdf site rates different chess programs. Deep Fritz 8 is around 2800 and with the man vs machine matches, it comes out the winner. So those rating must be pretty close to OTB.
So if there is a personality on CM 9000 which is rated at 2000 and you win several matches against it and other personalities around 2000 you OTB rating should be around 2000-80 = 1920 would it not be?
Assuming you used normal OTB time controls and have a decent computer.
Originally posted by RahimK I had a talk with someone about this and came up with an interesting concept.Let's take CM 9000 which is rated at 2780 on its highest level. It played a 4 game match against GM Larry C and beat him 2.5-1.5 I believe but one of those games should have been a win for him so i'll go 2-2. GM Larry C is around 2600-2700 so lets go with 2700. So CM is rated 2700 OT ...[text shortened]... 920 would it not be?
Assuming you used normal OTB time controls and have a decent computer.
Ratings calculated against a narrow range of opponents have no reliability. No matter how many Chessmaster personalities you test yourself against, you cannot arrive at a reasonable rating estimate that will predict your OTB rating.
Chessmaster's match against Christensen is too few games and too few opponents to estimate rating, although it reveals than Chessmaster is no patzer.
I believe Chessmaster's internal ratings are grossly inflated. I can easily reach a winning position against Vlad (rating 1849) even though I am 200+ points below it in OTB strength. Of course, it is possible than Chessmaster bases these ratings on much faster processors than my lethargic 3.4 GhZ P4 550 HT, especially as I have a mere 512 MB of RAM. Certainly the software would be stronger running on an AMD 5000+ with 2 Gig of RAM.
Originally posted by RahimK I had a talk with someone about this and came up with an interesting concept.Let's take CM 9000 which is rated at 2780 on its highest level. It played a 4 game match against GM Larry C and beat him 2.5-1.5 I believe but one of those games should have been a win for him so i'll go 2-2. GM Larry C is around 2600-2700 so lets go with 2700. So CM is rated 2700 OT ...[text shortened]... 920 would it not be?
Assuming you used normal OTB time controls and have a decent computer.
I dont think Chessmaster's ratings are anywhere close to that, I can play on a fast computer and beat it when I set it at a 2000 rated person, and I have a rating of only 1500, (On FICS). I have a friend who can beat the highest level everytime, and hes only rated 2000 OTB,
BTW, isnt CM supposed to play just as strong a slow computer vs a fast computer?
Originally posted by RahimK http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Rahim, is there anyway we can look up portable chess computers - like handhelds and stationary ones - for USCF comparison ratings? I thought there was some type of organization that actually does that type of research for chess hardware as well.
Originally posted by flyUnity I dont think Chessmaster's ratings are anywhere close to that, I can play on a fast computer and beat it when I set it at a 2000 rated person, and I have a rating of only 1500, (On FICS). I have a friend who can beat the highest level everytime, and hes only rated 2000 OTB,
BTW, isnt CM supposed to play just as strong a slow computer vs a fast computer?
I do not believe there is a 2000 player OTB who can beat Chessmaster 9000 on the highest level every single time. I'd love to see that one! And, Chessmaster 9000 was tested on an Athlon Pentium 3 with 1 point something GHZ I believe as I read awhile back. I also discovered that the 1700 personality on CHessmaster 9000 is stronger than my 1700 handheld chess computer. And, both had engineers test them equally well. They have to get through the FCC remember? And, the Better Business Bureau and everything. Think about it. They have rules that they must follow and they must prove that these ratings are genuine. Look at what happened to Christiansen and he is an awesome player!
I just wish chess computer makers and program makers would institute a policy where they play the chess computer against one-hundred different USCF rated opponents and then publish those findings with the literature included with your product. What's so difficult about that? Just play a 1 hour and 30 minute time limit with human against computer 100 times. I do not think they should measure their products against other computers with ratings when those ratings are most likely not so accurate either. If a human being is going to be buying the product (not a computer) then why not test it against human opponents? Why lie to the world? I just do not think that they do lie. I wrote to Excalibur - the company who makes my chess computer. They said that when the literature says it beats 95% of opponents. It is saying the entire world population. THe other 5% are tournament players and professionals from possibly 1500 USCF and upward.
Originally posted by powershaker I do not believe there is a 2000 player OTB who can beat Chessmaster 9000 on the highest level every single time. I'd love to see that one! And, Chessmaster 9000 was tested on an Athlon Pentium 3 with 1 point something GHZ I believe as I read awhile back. I also discovered that the 1700 personality on CHessmaster 9000 is stronger than my 1700 handheld on. THe other 5% are tournament players and professionals from possibly 1500 USCF and upward.
well, I shouldve said he can beat CM 7000, I dont have CM 9000, He was playing on a 1.1 GHZ 128 ram, with CM on the highest setting, and played two games in front of me, and won both of them, actually he used to play on RHP a little, as ratava , you can look at his games
Originally posted by flyUnity well, I shouldve said he can beat CM 7000, I dont have CM 9000, He was playing on a 1.1 GHZ 128 ram, with CM on the highest setting, and played two games in front of me, and won both of them, actually he used to play on RHP a little, as ratava , you can look at his games
Oh! That explains it! CHessmaster 7000 was so far weaker than the research that has been done by now that CHessmaster 9000 could destroy it. But, besides that, I know a player who can play Fritz with a particular opening and win everytime because he knows the whole line and the computer plays the same moves against it and he's able to win every time. Needless to say, I also can mostly when every single game against stand alone units when I play the Stonewall Attack against them. It's because the computer is bad in closed positions. So, I usually end up playing the King's Gambit, the Guioco Piano or the Indian Defense/Canard Opening, or Grandprix Attack against computers to see what I truly play like. The Stonewall usually wins every time against computers. Even Kramnik played it against Deep Blue Junior and smashed it. But, you won't see him playing that opening in top level tournaments against human monsters. No way.
Originally posted by flyUnity well, I shouldve said he can beat CM 7000, I dont have CM 9000, He was playing on a 1.1 GHZ 128 ram, with CM on the highest setting, and played two games in front of me, and won both of them, actually he used to play on RHP a little, as ratava , you can look at his games
Originally posted by flyUnity well, I shouldve said he can beat CM 7000, I dont have CM 9000, He was playing on a 1.1 GHZ 128 ram, with CM on the highest setting, and played two games in front of me, and won both of them, actually he used to play on RHP a little, as ratava , you can look at his games
Oh, I also so mention that a 2000 rated human player is much stronger than a 2000 rated computer! How so? Well, intuition of course, instinct and good planning - something computers often fail to simulate.
ChessMaster Ratings
16 Jan '06 18:43
Back to Top