Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Swedish Ratinglist 1/96 (1/2)

122 views
Skip to first unread message

Goran Grottling

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to

Comments to the Swedish Ratinglist 1/96, January 6.

MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz has lost eleven points since the last rating
list in November, but it still holds the first place of the list! After
nearly 500 games, the difference between the programs of Marty Hirsch and
Richard Lang is now only twelve points, clearly within the margin of error.

In the future we probably cannot continue with the "luxury" of testing new
programs on both Pentium and 486. But with MChess Pro 5.0 486/50-66 MHz we
have managed to play 317 games, and it's present rating is 2372. Although
that is one point below the rating of Rebel 7.0 on the same hardware, it
confirms that MChess Pro 5.0 is one of the strongest programs.

During the last weeks we have played with the new Genius 4.0 on Pentium 90
MHz. After 167 games the rating is 2421, which is 14 points less than
Genius 3.0 P90 has. Since the margin of error is almost 60, Genius 4.0 could
still reach the top of the list, but most likely the difference in playing
strength between Lang's two latest programs isn't very large. On the next
list we will also include Genius 4.0 on 486/50-66 MHz. Here Genius 4.0 has
started better than on P90.

Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz has gone up seven points since the last list. As
before, the difference in rating between Rebel 7 and Rebel 6 is clearly
larger on 486 than on Pentium.

Johan de Konings R30 version 2.5 has earned twelve more points and now has
2369. It continues to be the strongest chess computer.

It will probably be possible to include Hiarcs 4.0 P90 on the next list
scheduled for February 4.

Many new programs are waiting to be tested. Fritz 4.0 is of course an
exciting program to evaluate, but unfortunately we have not received any
copies from the manufacturer or the programmer.

A new Kallisto (v2.0) is expected in a few months. That's what we have been
told by Mr. Bart Weststraate. Chris Whittington's Chess System Tal is now
available, and so is the Danish program Gandalf v2.1 by Steen Suurballe.
ChessMaster 5000 is another expected program later this Spring.

But for the next month or so, our priority is to get as many games as
possible for Genius 4 and Hiarcs 4.

THE SSDF RATING LIST 1996-01-06 46909 games played by 148 computers

Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2447 33 -32 498 68% 2315
2 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2435 33 -31 498 66% 2317
3 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2423 31 -30 559 62% 2334
4 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz NEW!!! 2421 57 -54 167 63% 2326
5 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2416 36 -35 388 60% 2341
6 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2399 37 -35 384 60% 2329
7 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2381 35 -34 414 55% 2343
8 Rebel 7.0 486/50-66 MHz 2373 42 -40 307 63% 2282
9 MChess Pro 5.0 486/50-66 MHz 2372 41 -39 317 61% 2292
10 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2370 33 -33 455 58% 2314
11 R30 v. 2.5 2369 60 -53 179 72% 2201
12 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2365 27 -26 750 65% 2255
13 Mephisto Genius 2.0 486/50-66 MHz 2342 26 -25 757 60% 2271
14 MChess Pro 4.0 486/50-66 MHz 2324 27 -27 666 57% 2277
15 WChess 1.06 Pentium 90 MHz 2322 34 -34 420 45% 2354
16 Rebel 6.0 486/50-66 MHz 2310 26 -25 744 58% 2256
17 Hiarcs 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2309 27 -27 666 54% 2282
18 Chess Machine 30-32 MHz Schr”der 3.1 2306 32 -30 546 68% 2175
18 WChess 1.03 486/50-66 MHz 2306 29 -29 578 48% 2317
20 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2304 50 -49 202 54% 2272
21 Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30 off 2299 22 -22 1081 67% 2176
22 Chessmaster 4000 486/50-66 MHz 2295 34 -33 462 66% 2174
23 Chess Genius 1.0 486/50-66 MHz 2290 26 -25 756 56% 2245
24 MChess Pro 3.5 486/50-66 MHz 2277 25 -25 762 55% 2243
25 Mephisto Gideon Pro 486/50-66 MHz 2275 35 -34 421 62% 2186
26 MChess Pro 3.12 486/50-66 MHz 2267 36 -34 438 69% 2124
27 Fritz 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2264 25 -25 801 54% 2235
28 Chess Genius 1.0 486/33 MHz 2249 32 -32 463 50% 2249
29 Mephisto Vancouver 68030 36 MHz 2234 37 -34 451 73% 2058
30 MChess Pro 3.12 486/33 MHz 2230 50 -48 208 60% 2156
31 Kallisto 1.82-1.83 486/50-66 MHz 2223 25 -25 773 46% 2251
32 Berlin Pro 68 020 24 MHz 2218 27 -26 705 62% 2133
33 Kasparov SPARC 20 MHz 2213 27 -27 662 54% 2182
34 Mephisto RISC 1 MB ARM 2 14 MHz 2206 23 -22 981 60% 2133
35 Hiarcs Master 2.0 486/33 MHz 2204 46 -46 229 51% 2195
36 Saitek RISC 2500 ARM2 14 MHz 128K 2195 23 -23 955 58% 2137
36 Chess Machine Schr”der 512K ARM2 16MHz 2195 27 -26 703 62% 2111
38 Chess Machine The King 512K ARM2 16MHz 2178 32 -32 473 55% 2140
39 Mephisto Montreux ARM 14 MHz 512K 2176 48 -43 284 75% 1982
40 Mephisto Vancouver 68020 12 MHz 2163 24 -23 935 68% 2027
41 Socrates 3.0 486/33 MHz 2144 49 -50 203 47% 2165
42 Fritz 2.0 486/33 MHz 2137 30 -31 527 45% 2172
43 Fidelity Elite 68030 32 MHz (vers.9) 2121 40 -37 372 73% 1952
43 Mephisto Berlin 68 000 12 MHz 2121 25 -25 805 59% 2058
45 Mephisto Vancouver 68000 12 MHz 2104 23 -22 971 57% 2055
46 Novag Sapphire H8 10 MHz 2088 25 -24 807 51% 2081
47 Hiarcs Master 1.0 486/33 MHz 2072 48 -48 214 48% 2089
48 Fritz 1.0 486/33 MHz 2042 48 -47 215 55% 2009
49 Nimzo 2.2.1 486/33 MHz 2036 46 -47 229 42% 2090
50 Zarkov 3.0 486/25-33 MHz 2032 46 -48 232 39% 2111
51 Rex Chess 2.3 386/25-33 MHz 2029 65 -62 126 59% 1964
52 Kasparov Brute Force H8 10 MHz 2022 23 -23 906 44% 2061
53 Novag Diablo 68000 16 MHz 2008 21 -22 1080 41% 2071
54 Fidelity Mach III 68000 16 MHz 1993 14 -14 2404 52% 1980
55 Complete Chess System 486/33 MHz 1985 47 -47 221 47% 2008
56 Mephisto MM 5 6502 5 MHz 1981 20 -20 1264 49% 1985
57 Kasparov President/GK-2100 H8 10 MHz 1976 29 -30 558 47% 1998
58 Mephisto Polgar 6502 5 MHz 1971 17 -17 1693 42% 2031
59 Mephisto Milano 6502 5 MHz 1966 24 -25 820 42% 2026
60 Mephisto Amsterdam 68000 12 MHz 1926 22 -22 1020 58% 1872
61 Kasparov GK-2000 H8 10 MHz 1897 29 -29 593 42% 1953
62 Mephisto Modena 6502 4 MHz 1896 28 -29 615 41% 1959
63 Psion Atari 68000 8 MHz 1882 18 -18 1487 44% 1928
64 Novag Ruby H8 10 MHz 1879 30 -30 545 42% 1934
65 Saitek Turboking II 6502 5 MHz 1868 23 -23 963 37% 1964
65 Conchess Plymate Victoria 6502 5.5 MHz 1868 26 -27 701 40% 1941


1 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2447
Genius 3 P90 13-7 Rebel 7.0 P90 8.5-11.5 Rebel 6.0 P90 16-4
Hiarcs 3 P90 16.5-3.5 MCPro 4.0 P90 9-11 Rebel7 486/66 11.5-8.5
MCPro5 486/66 10-10 Fritz 3.0 P90 3.5-0.5 R30 v. 2.5 8-12
Geniu3 486/66 11.5-8.5 Geniu2 486/66 15-5 MCPr40 486/66 12-8
WChess P90 6-14 Rebel6 486/66 16-4 Hiarc3 486/66 16-4
WChess 486/66 14.5-5.5 Genius 68 030 7.5-2.5 CM30 King 2.0 13.5-3.5
ChGen1 486/66 22-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5 Fritz3 486/66 12-8
Lyon 68030 6-3 Kallis 486/66 33-7 SPARC 20 MHz 14.5-5.5
Meph. RISC 4-0 Chess M. King 4-0 Sapphire 19.5-0.5

2 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2435
Rebel 7.0 P90 10.5-9.5 Rebel 6.0 P90 9-11 Hiarcs 3 P90 14.5-5.5
MCPro 4.0 P90 13.5-6.5 Rebel7 486/66 13-7 MCPro5 486/66 2.5-7.5
Fritz 3.0 P90 14.5-5.5 R30 v. 2.5 1.5-1.5 Geniu3 486/66 9-11
Geniu2 486/66 15-11 MCPr40 486/66 10.5-9.5 WChess P90 14-6
Rebel6 486/66 12.5-7.5 Hiarc3 486/66 11-9 CM30 Schr 3.1 7.5-2.5
WChess 486/66 15.5-4.5 Genius 68 030 13.5-6.5 CM30 King 2.0 15-5
CM4000 486/66 2.5-1.5 ChGen1 486/66 17.5-4.5 MCPr35 486/66 12.5-8.5
Fritz3 486/66 17-3 Lyon 68030 15.5-4.5 Kallis 486/66 17.5-2.5
Meph. RISC 2-0 RISC 2500 15-4 Chess M Schr” 1-0
Sapphire 19.5-0.5

3 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2423
Genius 4 P90 8.5-11.5 Rebel 6.0 P90 15.5-15.5 Hiarcs 3 P90 10.5-9.5
MCPro 4.0 P90 17.5-12.5 Rebel7 486/66 14.5-7.5 MCPro5 486/66 14-6
Fritz 3.0 P90 12-8 R30 v. 2.5 2-3 Geniu3 486/66 21.5-18.5
Geniu2 486/66 11-9 MCPr40 486/66 30.5-9.5 WChess P90 10.5-9.5
Rebel6 486/66 16-7 Hiarc3 486/66 9.5-10.5 WChess 486/66 15.5-4.5
Genius 68 030 18.5-11.5 CM30 King 2.0 3-1 ChGen1 486/66 27.5-14.5
MCPr35 486/66 14.5-5.5 Fritz3 486/66 13.5-8.5 Lyon 68030 1-1
Kallis 486/66 25.5-5.5 Chess M. King 4.5-1.5 Vancou. 68020 3-1
Sapphire 7-0

4 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2421
Rebel 6.0 P90 3-5 Rebel7 486/66 4-6 MCPro5 486/66 1.5-1.5
R30 v. 2.5 12-8 WChess P90 13-7 Hiarc3 486/66 12.5-7.5
WChess 486/66 10.5-9.5 MCPr35 486/66 6-2 Fritz3 486/66 23.5-4.5
SPARC 20 MHz 8-2

5 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2416
Hiarcs 3 P90 9-11 MCPro 4.0 P90 10.5-9.5 MCPro5 486/66 11-9
Fritz 3.0 P90 13.5-6.5 Geniu3 486/66 10.5-9.5 Geniu2 486/66 12-8
MCPr40 486/66 14-6 WChess P90 12.5-7.5 Rebel6 486/66 16-4
Hiarc3 486/66 13.5-6.5 WChess 486/66 9-11 ChGen1 486/66 12-8
MCPr35 486/66 16-4 Fritz3 486/66 13.5-6.5 Kallis 486/66 18-2
Vancou. 68020 4-1 Sapphire 4-0

6 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2399
MCPro 4.0 P90 13.5-6.5 MCPro5 486/66 7-13 Fritz 3.0 P90 12.5-7.5
Geniu3 486/66 8-12 Geniu2 486/66 10-10 MCPr40 486/66 16-4
WChess P90 17-3 Rebel6 486/66 15-5 Hiarc3 486/66 12.5-7.5
WChess 486/66 12.5-7.5 ChGen1 486/66 13-8 MCPr35 486/66 12-8
Fritz3 486/66 14-8 Kallis 486/66 17-3 RISC 2500 2-0
Sapphire 18-1

7 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2381
Rebel7 486/66 3-13 MCPro5 486/66 12-8 Fritz 3.0 P90 8.5-11.5
Geniu3 486/66 11-9 Geniu2 486/66 12.5-7.5 MCPr40 486/66 12-8
WChess P90 12-8 Rebel6 486/66 16-8 Hiarc3 486/66 14-8
WChess 486/66 14-6 CM30 King 2.0 7.5-5.5 ChGen1 486/66 11-9
MCPr35 486/66 13-7 Fritz3 486/66 18-9 Kallis 486/66 17-3
Chess M. King 2-0

8 Rebel 7.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2373
Fritz 3.0 P90 6-4 Geniu3 486/66 8.5-11.5 Geniu2 486/66 9-11
MCPr40 486/66 14-6 WChess P90 10-10 Hiarc3 486/66 13-7
WChess 486/66 0.5-0.5 ChGen1 486/33 10.5-9.5 Berlin Pro 1-1
SPARC 20 MHz 3-1 Fritz2 486/33 16.5-3.5 Berlin 68 000 9.5-1.5
Sapphire 1-0 Mach IV 68020 19-1 Brute Force 10-0
Diablo 68000 18.5-1.5

9 MChess Pro 5.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2372
Fritz 3.0 P90 8-12 WChess P90 9.5-10.5 Rebel6 486/66 10.5-9.5
WChess 486/66 11.5-8.5 ChGen1 486/33 14.5-5.5 Berlin Pro 22-8
RISC 2500 16-4 Fritz2 486/33 15.5-4.5 Berlin 68 000 1-0
Sapphire 3-0 Mach IV 68020 5-1 Brute Force 18.5-1.5
Diablo 68000 4-0

10 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2370
Geniu3 486/66 11-11 Geniu2 486/66 10-10 MCPr40 486/66 12-8
WChess P90 10.5-9.5 Rebel6 486/66 19.5-15.5 Hiarc3 486/66 14.5-5.5
WChess 486/66 12.5-7.5 Genius 68 030 7-5 CM30 King 2.0 6.5-2.5
ChGen1 486/66 7.5-12.5 MCPr35 486/66 14.5-5.5 Fritz3 486/66 15.5-4.5
Kallis 486/66 16-4 Meph. RISC 15.5-4.5 Vancou. 68020 14.5-5.5
Lyon 68020 18-2 Sapphire 3-0

11 R30 v. 2.5, 2369
Berlin Pro 26.5-13.5 RISC 2500 14.5-5.5 Sapphire 19.5-2.5
Mach IV 68020 17-3 Meph. MM 5 9-0 President 18.5-1.5

12 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2365
Geniu2 486/66 11.5-8.5 MCPr40 486/66 12.5-9.5 WChess P90 8.5-11.5
Rebel6 486/66 20.5-13.5 Hiarc3 486/66 9.5-10.5 WChess 486/66 11.5-8.5
CM30 King 2.0 11.5-8.5 CM4000 486/66 13.5-6.5 ChGen1 486/66 12-9
MCPr35 486/66 11.5-8.5 Fritz3 486/66 16.5-3.5 ChGen1 486/33 12.5-7.5
Kallis 486/66 12-8 Berlin Pro 12.5-7.5 SPARC 20 MHz 13.5-6.5
Meph. RISC 20-5 RISC 2500 13-7 Chess M Schr” 15-5
Montreaux 1.5-0.5 Lyon 68020 13.5-6.5 Fritz2 486/33 18.5-1.5
Berlin 68 000 3-0 Lyon 68000 19.5-4.5 Vancou. 68000 15-5
Sapphire 17-3 Mach IV 68020 13.5-3.5 Brute Force 20-0
Diablo 68000 20-0 Polgar 5 MHz 19-1

13 Mephisto Genius 2.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2342
MCPr40 486/66 10-10 WChess P90 12-8 Rebel6 486/66 13.5-6.5
Hiarc3 486/66 10.5-9.5 CM30 Schr 3.1 14-6 WChess 486/66 11-9
CM30 King 2.0 20-22 CM4000 486/66 9-8 ChGen1 486/66 11.5-8.5
MCPr35 486/66 10-10 Gideon 486/66 5.5-7.5 MCPr31 486/66 5.5-2.5
Fritz3 486/66 12-9 ChGen1 486/33 22.5-13.5 Portor. 68030 2.5-2.5
Kallis 486/66 16-10 SPARC 20 MHz 15.5-4.5 Meph. RISC 14.5-5.5
Hiarc2 486/33 13-7 RISC 2500 21-10 Chess M Schr” 20-4
Chess M. King 18-4 Lyon 68020 14.5-5.5 Socr 3 486/33 8.5-2.5
M Chess 386 3-1 Berlin 68 000 16-4 Vancou. 68000 16-4
Diablo 68000 18-2 Mach III 9-1 Zark26 386/25 1-0

14 MChess Pro 4.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2324
WChess P90 11.5-8.5 Rebel6 486/66 14.5-13.5 Hiarc3 486/66 11-9
WChess 486/66 11-9 CM30 King 2.0 10.5-9.5 CM4000 486/66 11.5-8.5
ChGen1 486/66 13-7 MCPr35 486/66 13-9 Gideon 486/66 14.5-5.5
Fritz3 486/66 12-9 ChGen1 486/33 14-6 Kallis 486/66 16.5-3.5
Berlin Pro 14-6 SPARC 20 MHz 10.5-9.5 Meph. RISC 19-6
Lyon 68020 14.5-6.5 Fritz2 486/33 16-4 Berlin 68 000 15-5
Lyon 68000 3-3 Sapphire 16-4 Brute Force 18-2
Diablo 68000 18-2 Polgar 5 MHz 1-0

15 WChess 1.06 Pentium 90 MHz, 2322
Rebel6 486/66 9.5-10.5 Hiarc3 486/66 10.5-9.5 WChess 486/66 9-11
ChGen1 486/66 10-10 MCPr35 486/66 11.5-8.5 Fritz3 486/66 10.5-9.5
Kallis 486/66 11-9

16 Rebel 6.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2310
Hiarc3 486/66 11.5-8.5 WChess 486/66 12-8 CM30 King 2.0 7.5-9.5
ChGen1 486/66 11-9 MCPr35 486/66 13.5-6.5 Fritz3 486/66 11.5-10.5
ChGen1 486/33 10.5-9.5 MCPr31 486/33 7.5-2.5 Kallis 486/66 14-9
Berlin Pro 15.5-8.5 SPARC 20 MHz 9-11 Meph. RISC 14-6
Hiarc2 486/33 5.5-4.5 RISC 2500 16.5-3.5 Chess M Schr” 7-3
Chess M. King 7-3 Montreaux 1.5-0.5 Lyon 68020 15-5
Socr 3 486/33 9-1 Fritz2 486/33 15-5 Berlin 68 000 17-3
Vancou. 68000 17-3 Almeria 68020 4-0 Fritz1 486/33 9.5-0.5
Brute Force 18-2 Diablo 68000 18.5-1.5 CCS 486/33 9-1
Polgar 5 MHz 17-1

17 Hiarcs 3.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2309
CM30 Schr 3.1 9.5-10.5 WChess 486/66 9.5-10.5 CM30 King 2.0 11.5-8.5
CM4000 486/66 13-7 ChGen1 486/66 8.5-11.5 MCPr35 486/66 11-9
Gideon 486/66 10.5-9.5 MCPr31 486/66 9-2 Fritz3 486/66 16.5-10.5
ChGen1 486/33 12.5-7.5 Kallis 486/66 10.5-9.5 Berlin Pro 13-7
SPARC 20 MHz 11.5-8.5 Chess M Schr” 5-1 Lyon 68020 15-5
Fritz2 486/33 15-5 Berlin 68 000 15-5 Sapphire 15-5
Brute Force 18-2 Diablo 68000 16-4

18 Chess Machine 30-32 MHz Schr”der 3.1, 2306
WChess 486/66 10.5-9.5 CM30 King 2.0 8.5-11.5 CM4000 486/66 9-11
ChGen1 486/66 14-7 MCPr35 486/66 10.5-9.5 Gideon 486/66 14.5-5.5
MCPr31 486/66 14-15 ChGen1 486/33 11-9 Vancou. 68030 7.5-3.5
MCPr31 486/33 3-1 Kallis 486/66 13-7 SPARC 20 MHz 13.5-6.5
Meph. RISC 13.5-6.5 Hiarc2 486/33 1.5-1.5 RISC 2500 12.5-7.5
Chess M. King 0.5-0.5 Vancou. 68020 12-8 Socr 3 486/33 6-0
Fritz2 486/33 16.5-3.5 Vancou. 68000 18.5-1.5 Hiarc1 486/33 2.5-1.5
Nimzo 486/33 15.5-4.5 Zark30 486/33 18.5-1.5 Brute Force 18.5-1.5
Diablo 68000 15-2 Mach III 17-3 Meph. MM 5 18-2
Polgar 5 MHz 19-1 Meph. Milano 17.5-2.5

19 WChess 1.03 486/50-66 MHz, 2306
CM30 King 2.0 9.5-10.5 CM4000 486/66 10.5-9.5 ChGen1 486/66 9.5-10.5
MCPr35 486/66 10-10 Gideon 486/66 5-3 Fritz3 486/66 13.5-6.5
ChGen1 486/33 9.5-10.5 Kallis 486/66 14-6 Berlin Pro 11.5-8.5
SPARC 20 MHz 12.5-7.5 Meph. RISC 13-7 Fritz2 486/33 17-3
Sapphire 5-4

20 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz, 2304
CM30 King 2.0 20.5-23.5 Lyon 68030 17-13 Meph. RISC 6-3
RISC 2 1MB 2.5-2.5 Sapphire 4-0 Mach IV 68020 18.5-1.5
Super Exp. C 16-2

21 Ch.Machine 30 MHz King 2.0 aggr/R30 off, 2299
CM4000 486/66 9.5-10.5 ChGen1 486/66 14-6 MCPr35 486/66 12-8
Gideon 486/66 13-7 MCPr31 486/66 12.5-7.5 Fritz3 486/66 11.5-8.5
Lyon 68030 9.5-10.5 ChGen1 486/33 13.5-6.5 MCPr31 486/33 11-9
Berlin Pro 11-9 SPARC 20 MHz 12-8 Meph. RISC 23.5-13.5
Hiarc2 486/33 13.5-6.5 RISC 2500 7.5-2.5 Vancou. 68020 11.5-8.5
Socr 3 486/33 16-4 Fritz2 486/33 14.5-5.5 Lyon 68000 70-21
Vancou. 68000 14-6 Sapphire 15.5-6.5 Mach IV 68020 62-18
Hiarc1 486/33 17-3 Nimzo 486/33 18-2 Zark30 486/33 13-7
Roma 68020 18.5-1.5 Brute Force 17-3 Diablo 68000 17.5-3.5
Mach III 24.5-0.5 CCS 486/33 15.5-1.5 Meph. MM 5 2-0
Polgar 5 MHz 18-2 Meph. Milano 18.5-1.5 Super Exp. C 45-5

22 Chessmaster 4000 486/50-66 MHz, 2295
Gideon 486/66 2-1 Kallis 486/66 3-5 Berlin Pro 15-6
SPARC 20 MHz 11-9 RISC 2500 18-12 Chess M Schr” 17.5-2.5
Chess M. King 19.5-2.5 Lyon 68020 11-9 Berlin 68 000 15-5
Lyon 68000 16.5-3.5 Vancou. 68000 16.5-3.5 Mach IV 68020 6.5-3.5
Nimzo 486/33 17.5-2.5 Brute Force 11-4 Diablo 68000 16.5-3.5
Mach III 2-0 Polgar 5 MHz 26-4 Meph. Milano 20-0

23 Chess Genius 1.0 486/50-66 MHz, 2290
MCPr35 486/66 10.5-11.5 CM30 Schr 3.0 2-3 Gideon 486/66 2.5-3.5
MCPr31 486/66 2-2 Fritz3 486/66 10.5-9.5 ChGen1 486/33 9.5-10.5
Vancou. 68030 12-8 Kallis 486/66 10.5-9.5 SPARC 20 MHz 2-0
Meph. RISC 2-1 Hiarc2 486/33 13-7 RISC 2500 12.5-2.5
Chess M Schr” 24-11 Chess M. King 20-14 Lyon 68020 8-2
Fritz2 486/33 14-6 Vancou. 68000 17-3 Hiarc1 486/33 9-1
Brute Force 8.5-0.5 Diablo 68000 17.5-2.5 Meph. MM 5 17.5-2.5
Polgar 5 MHz 7-0 Meph. Milano 15.5-1.5 Super Exp. C 17.5-2.5
Meph. Mega IV 19-1

24 MChess Pro 3.5 486/50-66 MHz, 2277
Gideon 486/66 10.5-12.5 Fritz3 486/66 6-14 ChGen1 486/33 10.5-9.5
Portor. 68030 13.5-6.5 Kallis 486/66 11-9 SPARC 20 MHz 9-11
Meph. RISC 2.5-1.5 Hiarc2 486/33 11-9 RISC 2500 20.5-9.5
Chess M Schr” 12.5-7.5 Chess M. King 15.5-4.5 Lyon 68020 15-5
Socr 3 486/33 7-3 Fritz2 486/33 15-9 Berlin 68 000 14-6
Vancou. 68000 18-2 Brute Force 18.5-1.5 Diablo 68000 17.5-2.5
Mach III 16.5-1.5 Polgar 5 MHz 38-2

25 Mephisto Gideon Pro 486/50-66 MHz, 2275
MCPr31 486/66 0.5-1.5 ChGen1 486/33 4-6 Portor. 68030 9-11
MCPr31 486/33 6-1 Berlin Pro 8-1 SPARC 20 MHz 13-8
Meph. RISC 3.5-4.5 Hiarc2 486/33 13.5-5.5 RISC 2500 12.5-7.5
Chess M Schr” 3-0 Chess M. King 12.5-7.5 Lyon 68020 14.5-5.5
Socr 3 486/33 15.5-5.5 M Chess 386 1-1 Lyon 68000 2-0
Vancou. 68000 15.5-4.5 Almeria 68020 4.5-1.5 Nimzo 486/33 2-0
Zark30 486/33 8.5-2.5 Diablo 68000 16.5-3.5 Mach III 5-0
Meph. MM 5 17-3 Polgar 5 MHz 19.5-0.5

Don Getkey

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to
Why is it that we can not say with certainty that any of todays chess
programs have an actual rating? Obviously it is because we have no
"official games" played! We
have approximations based on tests. We have games played, primarily
program vs. program. We do have (considerably less) games played against
the best humans. But all this, and still no one can lay claim that any
program has a rating of anykind!?! Not an FIDE rating, not a USCF, or
BFC, etc.!?! Why not allow programs to gain actual rating points by
letting them participate in ANY tournament that humans do?
The only problem I see would be what platform to accept as
"standard", or "THE standard", i.e. 486, P75,
P90,P100,P120,P133,P150,P166? Every month there seems to be a new
"standard" PC.
Another thing this would promote is programmers designing programs
that play better "human chess". I would love to buy a program that was
"officially rated"!

in chess
Don


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to
In article <4jjdpq$v...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,


I think the answer to this has several parts:

1. The USCF adopted a silly and arbitrary policy concerning computers playing
in human tournaments. This is the famous "I don't want to play against a
computer" option anyone can exercise. This causes grief for the TD trying to
work out pairings, aggravation for those humans that do play the machine and
lose and finish below those that refused to play the machine, etc. In short,
the "policy" makes it a pain, and, as a result, tournaments are almost NC
exclusively.

2. The USCF decided that programs (all programs) are backed by wealthy
sponsors. As a result, it costs more for a computer to enter a tournament
than it does a human because of the computer registration, and the special
arrangements some programs require like an on-site machine or else (as in
the case of Cray Blitz) a phone line for communication.

3. The machines add a "circus quality" to a tournament. I've entered Cray
Blitz in my share of tournaments over the years, and it draws large crowds
standing around, kibitzing out loud while the game is in progress, etc. Yet
another strike against the machines.

4. A "standard" rating would be a problem to determine, since machines are
changing daily. A program with a rating established on a slow machine will be
a problem when moved to a much faster machine. It will be paired wrong, will
disrupt ratings because it's under-rated, etc. You wouldn't want a 2300
program to suddenly become 2450 without any warning. That will penalize those
who play it first as they will be getting beat by an "electronic sandbagger".

5. Supposedly only the "author" can enter a program, which is likely the
only "good" idea in the current computer policy. To see what I mean, log
on to ICC/FICS and look at the number of "copies" of programs running there,
then imaging a tournament with 10 humans and 40 PC-based computer programs.

6. Computers can't win "prizes". Of course, their "human operator" still
picks up all the expenses, with no chance of recuperating any of them. What's
in it for "me" to go to a tournament, pay the expenses to travel, perhaps
stay overnight, possibly win the tournament, and leave with an empty pocket?
BTW, this happened in 1981. If you check back through your old Chess Life
magazines, you'll discover that Cray Blitz entered the "Mississippi Closed
State Championship" by invitation, went 5-0, and completely disrupted the
tournament. It beat the best player there (human) and knocked him out of
first place. The 2nd best played elected the now infamous "no computers
for moi" and won the tournament, although it's likely he would have been
cannon fodder for Cray Blitz. The "master" Cray Blitz beat in that
tournament would have retired the trophy had he repeated for the 3rd
time. This tournament was the next-to-last human event we played in, as we
felt the USCF computer policy tended to create far more problems like this
than it helped.

From the above, it's obvious that there's much more to be "lost" than there
is to be "gained" by playing in a human tournament. As a result, you are
going to have to live with "claimed" ratings, "estimated" ratings,
"approximate" ratings, "ICC" or "FICS" ratings, "Swedish" ratings, and
so forth.

Hope that gives you a "programmer's perspective". We'd all love to play
in more human tournaments, but at present, it's not quite as simple as it
seems.

Bob
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

Kenneth Sloan

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to
In article <4jjdpq$v...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Don Getkey <dong...@aol.com> wrote:
>Why is it that we can not say with certainty that any of todays chess
>programs have an actual rating?

from my USCF-ratings database:

COMPX,B P IL 2313*m9
COMPX,EVALUATOR MA 1805*B5
COMPX,FIDELITY MACH 3 MD 2100*X0
COMPX,KASPAROV'S GAMBIT X CA 2531/07
COMPX,M CHESS CA 2331/04
COMPX,NOVAG DIAMOND AL 1881/05
COMPX,NOVAG H AL 2090/17
COMPX,NOVAG M AL 1970/10
COMPX,R25 AL 2253/07
COMPX,SH8 AL 1914/04
COMPX,SPECTOR MA 1848*B9
COMPX,TURBO X AL 2176*x0
COMPX,WCHESS AL 2093/08
COMPX,ZK25 CO 2275*X7


--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@cis.uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

Don Getkey

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to
In article <4jjlhf$9...@ss20-1.cis.uab.edu>, hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert
Hyatt) writes:

>I think the answer to this has several parts:
>
>

I knew someone out there could answer this, thanks Bob, again.
Do you (or anyone) know of any efforts to organize separate
tournaments that would include computers as officially recognized players?
It would be interesting to see how such tournaments would draw in
players vs. "human only" tournaments. I see your point about TDs getting
tied up in knots trying to figure out pairings when computers are present
and "foul" is cried. :-()
Maybe there could be "ATDs", "Assistant TDs" who could be official
computer opponent operators? Perhaps this is an area that "stand-alones"
should/could focus there efforts on? Since stand-alone units can not be
upgraded in speed (like PC based programs), they could be measured/used as
a "standard" wherever they might play, right? The "TASC R30" is always
going to run at the same 30mhz whether here or in NY City, isn't it?
Maybe this would/could mean a resurgence of the "stand-alone" chess
computer? Maybe those manufacturers of TASC, Mephisto, Saitek, Novag, and
Fidelity, are over looking an opportunity to reclaim the computer chess
market, by not insisting that their product be placed in special USCF
sanctioned computer&human tournaments? With all the excitement generated
by GM Kasparov's titanic struggle to defeat the worlds fastest chess
computer Deep Blue, it looks like the right time to tweak the system a
little, and capitalize on the obvious popularity of seeing humans play
official games against computers in actual tournaments!

yours in chess,
Don

Don Getkey

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
In article <4jk16l$d...@crestline.cis.uab.edu>, sl...@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth
Sloan) writes:

>from my USCF-ratings database:
>
>COMPX,B P IL 2313*m9
>COMPX,EVALUATOR MA 1805*B5
>COMPX,FIDELITY MACH 3 MD 2100*X0
>COMPX,KASPAROV'S GAMBIT X CA 2531/07
>COMPX,M CHESS CA 2331/04
>COMPX,NOVAG DIAMOND AL 1881/05
>COMPX,NOVAG H AL 2090/17
>COMPX,NOVAG M AL 1970/10
>COMPX,R25 AL 2253/07
>COMPX,SH8 AL 1914/04
>COMPX,SPECTOR MA 1848*B9
>COMPX,TURBO X AL 2176*x0
>COMPX,WCHESS AL 2093/08
>COMPX,ZK25 CO 2275*X7
>
>

Mr.Sloan, could you elaborate on how/when these ratings were officially
achieved? Could you also explain the nomenclature used here?

yours in chess,
Don

Kenneth Sloan

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
In article <4jomq9$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,


Since these ratings have appeared in the ordinary USCF Ratings Lists, I
assume that they are the result of play in regularly scheduled USCF
events. As for the nomenclature, let's take the first one on the list:


>>COMPX,B P IL 2313*m9

COMPX - indicates an experimental computer/program
B P - the name of the the computer/program
IL - the state of "residence" (mailing address)
2313 - USCF rating
m - code for the Lifetime Title of "Certified Master"
9 - 9 points (out of 10 required)
towards the Lifetime Title of "Advanced Master"

Dan Thies

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
sl...@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) wrote:

>from my USCF-ratings database:

>COMPX,B P IL 2313*m9
>COMPX,EVALUATOR MA 1805*B5
>COMPX,FIDELITY MACH 3 MD 2100*X0
>COMPX,KASPAROV'S GAMBIT X CA 2531/07
>COMPX,M CHESS CA 2331/04
>COMPX,NOVAG DIAMOND AL 1881/05
>COMPX,NOVAG H AL 2090/17
>COMPX,NOVAG M AL 1970/10
>COMPX,R25 AL 2253/07
>COMPX,SH8 AL 1914/04
>COMPX,SPECTOR MA 1848*B9
>COMPX,TURBO X AL 2176*x0
>COMPX,WCHESS AL 2093/08
>COMPX,ZK25 CO 2275*X7

Thanks for posting those, Kenneth. It doesn't appear that these
ratings are any more revealing than the Swedish list, probably less
so. I doubt that Kasparov's Gambit is a better player than WChess.
It would help if the computers had played more than a few games,
though! Not many official ratings here, mostly provisionals.

Dan


Kenneth Sloan

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
In article <4jp5hm$g...@news.accessone.com>,
Dan Thies <rt...@accessone.com> wrote:

>
>Thanks for posting those, Kenneth. It doesn't appear that these
>ratings are any more revealing than the Swedish list, probably less
>so. I doubt that Kasparov's Gambit is a better player than WChess.
>It would help if the computers had played more than a few games,
>though! Not many official ratings here, mostly provisionals.

All of the ratings are "official".

Yes, it would be nice if these players played more games. Just as it
would be nice if more humans played more games, so we could see how
strong they are.

Mike Leahy (BOOKUP)

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
Don Getkey wrote:
>
> Why is it that we can not say with certainty that any of todays chess
> programs have an actual rating? Obviously it is because we have no
> "official games" played! We
> have approximations based on tests. We have games played, primarily
> program vs. program. We do have (considerably less) games played against
> the best humans. But all this, and still no one can lay claim that any
> program has a rating of anykind!?! Not an FIDE rating, not a USCF, or
> BFC, etc.!?! Why not allow programs to gain actual rating points by
> letting them participate in ANY tournament that humans do?
> The only problem I see would be what platform to accept as
> "standard", or "THE standard", i.e. 486, P75,
> P90,P100,P120,P133,P150,P166? Every month there seems to be a new
> "standard" PC.
> Another thing this would promote is programmers designing programs
> that play better "human chess". I would love to buy a program that was
> "officially rated"!
>
> in chess
> Don

Hey Don,

I agree! I know of one obstacle that keeps most programmers from
pursuing a human rating -- price. You and I can play in tournaments
for a few bucks. However, the cost of a rating from the USCF for a
computer is often thousands of dollars and lots of effort. The
results are often disdained by the more informed computer-buying
public, too.

The Swedish list is revered because it's commonly believed to be
impartial and it's used by programmers because it's not expensive.

I'd much rather see the little silicon beasts try to survive regular
tournaments like the rest of us. Oh what fun stories could be told
of preparing for a particular computer -- or having a program prepare
for us!

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"

Ed Parry

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to

>1. The USCF adopted a silly and arbitrary policy concerning computers playing
>in human tournaments. This is the famous "I don't want to play against a
>computer" option anyone can exercise. This causes grief for the TD trying to
>work out pairings, aggravation for those humans that do play the machine and
>lose and finish below those that refused to play the machine, etc. In short,
>the "policy" makes it a pain, and, as a result, tournaments are almost NC
>exclusively.

> - big snip goeth here -

>From the above, it's obvious that there's much more to be "lost" than there
>is to be "gained" by playing in a human tournament. As a result, you are
>going to have to live with "claimed" ratings, "estimated" ratings,
>"approximate" ratings, "ICC" or "FICS" ratings, "Swedish" ratings, and
>so forth.
>
>Hope that gives you a "programmer's perspective". We'd all love to play
>in more human tournaments, but at present, it's not quite as simple as it
>seems.
>
>Bob

Hi Bob!

1) I can understand the NO COMPUTERS option for tourny's. Folks muist
realize that computers can store data in ways humans cannot and they can
instantly retrieve it easily. Opening books as a prime example:

Computer access there reference material directly to check openings, and
reply accordingly.

The equivelent for a humna would be to allow them access their data
storage unit (a book or computer with their opening in it).

We both know this is not allowed, so in a sense, the computer is getting
preferential treatment.

It can do this with openings, bad position type of middle game databases,
and end game databases.

Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE computer chess fan, but I DO understand
the qualms of those that play tournament level NOT wanting to play
against an opponent (computer or otherwise) that can refer to their
storage units/ref material for info, while the human cannot, during play.

I suspect this will bring up the argument of memory vs storage, but
that's another debate. 8-)

Ep
--
Ed Parry
Van Nuys, CA
EBBS - 818-891-9350 - Chess, BASIC/ASM Programming, Discussion


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
In article <1996Apr1.1...@lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
-->
-->>1. The USCF adopted a silly and arbitrary policy concerning computers playing
-->>in human tournaments. This is the famous "I don't want to play against a
-->>computer" option anyone can exercise. This causes grief for the TD trying to
-->>work out pairings, aggravation for those humans that do play the machine and
-->>lose and finish below those that refused to play the machine, etc. In short,
-->>the "policy" makes it a pain, and, as a result, tournaments are almost NC
-->>exclusively.
-->
-->> - big snip goeth here -
-->
-->>From the above, it's obvious that there's much more to be "lost" than there
-->>is to be "gained" by playing in a human tournament. As a result, you are
-->>going to have to live with "claimed" ratings, "estimated" ratings,
-->>"approximate" ratings, "ICC" or "FICS" ratings, "Swedish" ratings, and
-->>so forth.
-->>
-->>Hope that gives you a "programmer's perspective". We'd all love to play
-->>in more human tournaments, but at present, it's not quite as simple as it
-->>seems.
-->>
-->>Bob
-->
-->Hi Bob!
-->
-->1) I can understand the NO COMPUTERS option for tourny's. Folks muist
-->realize that computers can store data in ways humans cannot and they can
-->instantly retrieve it easily. Opening books as a prime example:
-->
-->Computer access there reference material directly to check openings, and
-->reply accordingly.
-->
-->The equivelent for a humna would be to allow them access their data
-->storage unit (a book or computer with their opening in it).
-->
-->We both know this is not allowed, so in a sense, the computer is getting
-->preferential treatment.
-->
-->It can do this with openings, bad position type of middle game databases,
-->and end game databases.

Of course, depending on your interpretation of the rules, nearly every part
of a computer chess program violates the spirit of the rules. Every part of
it is "stored" information if you take the analogy far enough. Of course,
it does compare favorably with a human's "memory" too. Ever seen a GM play
through a game that was played years ago, by two different human players,
move for move, cite the exact tournament/players/date, etc. Wonder how he
does that?

-->
-->Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE computer chess fan, but I DO understand
-->the qualms of those that play tournament level NOT wanting to play
-->against an opponent (computer or otherwise) that can refer to their
-->storage units/ref material for info, while the human cannot, during play.

I don't buy the argument, but it doesn't really matter to me, one way or
the other. Do you exclude humans that have perfect recall? What about
the ones with good (but not perfect) recall? When I play a GM (or many
IM's, Mike Valvo comes to mind) I know full well that Mike knows thousands
of book lines, and it doesn't bother me one iota, nor does it make me want
to play him any less. No matter what happens, there are arbitrary ways to
restrict computers when the going gets tough. First, no endgame databases,
but it's getting possible to calculate many of 'em on the fly. Then, no
opening, but Deep Blue (and other programs) have shown that that they can
play perfectly normal-looking chess without a book (as in round two of DB
vs Kasparov). No external memory? many megabytes on chip now, maybe a
gig in a few years. We can keep constraining the machine, but technology
will continue to overcome the constraints. It's simply more interesting to
say "anything goes in an electronic player, how good can it become?"

Funny thing is, I suspect most GM's are *better* prepared "book-wise" than
the best programs. This includes Crafty's huge opening book as well. It's
simply not that much of an advantage.

-->
-->I suspect this will bring up the argument of memory vs storage, but
-->that's another debate. 8-)
-->

You should have "let it lie..." :)

0 new messages