Zarkov vs. Mach III (10 games)
Stuart Cracraft
Fidelity Mach III (16mhz 68000)
When: held during November, 1989
Time control: 60/15
Match score: Won 6.5 - 3.5 by Mach III
Here's the complete game record.
white black
Zarkov Mach III
(60 / 15)
0-1
1. e2e4 c7c5
2. c2c3 d7d5
3. e4d5 d8d5
4. d2d4 e7e6
5. c1e3 c5d4
6. d1d4 d5d4
7. e3d4 g8f6
8. d4f6 g7f6
9. b1d2 b8c6
10. e1c1 e6e5
11. d2e4 f8h6
12. c1c2 c8f5
13. f1d3 f5e4
14. d3e4 a8c8
15. g1f3 c8d8
16. e4c6 b7c6
17. d1d8 e8d8
18. f3h4 h8g8
19. h4f5 h6f8
20. h1d1 d8c7
21. g2g3 f8c5
22. f2f3 g8d8
23. d1d8 c7d8
24. c2d3 d8d7
25. c3c4 a7a6
26. d3e4 c5g1
27. h2h3 g1c5
28. a2a3 a6a5
29. f3f4 c5d6
30. f5h6 e5f4
31. g3f4 d7e6
32. f4f5 e6d7
33. a3a4 d7e8
34. h6g4 e8e7
35. b2b3 d6c5
36. g4h6 e7f8
37. h3h4 f8g7
38. h6g4 h7h5
39. g4e3 g7f8
40. e3g2 f8e7
41. g2f4 c5f2
42. f4h5 f2h4
43. e4d4 h4f2
44. d4d3 c6c5
45. d3e4 e7d6
46. h5f6 f2d4
47. f6d5 d4b2
48. d5e3 b2e5
49. e4d3 e5g7
50. e3g4 g7e5
51. g4f2 e5d4
52. f2e4 d6e5
53. e4g5 e5f6
54. g5f3 d4f2
55. d3e4 f2g3
56. f3g1 g3d6
57. g1h3 d6g3
58. h3f4 f6e7
59. f4d5 e7d6
60. d5c3 f7f6
61. e4d3 g3e5
62. c3d5 d6d7
63. d3d2 e5d4
64. d5f4 d7d6
65. f4g6 d6c6
66. d2d3 c6d6
67. d3e4 d4c3
68. g6f4 c3d4
69. f4d5 d4a1
70. e4d3 d6e5
71. d5e7 e5d6
72. e7c8 d6c7
73. c8a7 a1e5
74. a7b5 c7c6
75. d3e3 c6b6
76. e3f3 b6c6
77. f3e4 e5g3
78. e4e3 g3h2
79. b5c3 c6d6
80. e3f3 d6e5
81. f3g4 h2f4
82. c3d5 f4d2
83. d5c7 d2c1
84. c7e6 c1e3
85. e6f8 e5e4
86. f8d7 e3d4
87. d7b8 e4d3
88. b8c6 d4c3
89. g4f4 d3c2
90. f4e4 c2b3
91. e4d5 b3a4
92. d5c5 a4b3
93. c6a5 c3a5
94. c5d5 b3b4
95. c4c5 b4b5
96. c5c6 b5b6
97. d5e6 a5c3
98. e6d6 c3d4
99. d6d7 d4e5
100. c6c7 e5c7
101. d7e6 c7e5
102. e6d5 b6b5
103. d5e6 b5c5
104. e6f7 c5d5
105. f7e7 d5e4
106. e7e6 e4f4
107. e6d5
Match game 2
white black
Mach-III Zarkov
(60/15)
1-0
1. d2d4 g8f6
2. c2c4 e7e6
3. b1c3 f8b4
4. a2a3 b4c3
5. b2c3 e8g8
6. f2f3 d7d5
7. c4d5 e6d5
8. e2e3 c8f5
9. f1d3 f5d3
10. d1d3 f8e8
11. g1e2 b8d7
12. a1b1 b7b6
13. c3c4 d5c4
14. d3c4 c7c5
15. e1g1 a8c8
16. f1d1 d7e5
17. c4b3 c5d4
18. d1d4 d8e7
19. e2c3 e5c6
20. c3d5 f6d5
21. d4d5 e7h4
22. c1b2 c6a5
23. b3d3 a5c4
24. b2d4 e8d8
25. d5d8 h4d8
26. b1c1 d8d5
27. e3e4 d5e6
28. f3f4 f7f6
29. e4e5 f6e5
30. f4e5 c8c6
31. c1e1 e6d5
32. e1d1 c6e6
33. d3b3 e6g6
34. g2g3 g6e6
35. d4f2 d5c6
36. d1d8 g8f7
37. b3d3 e6e5
38. d8d7 f7g8
39. d7a7 e5d5
40. d3f3 c4e5
41. f3e2 d5b5
42. e2a2 g8h8
43. f2e3 e5f3
44. g1f2 f3h2
45. a7f7 h2g4
46. f2g1 c6d6
47. e3f2 g4e5
48. f7f4 b5a5
49. a2d2 d6e7
50. a3a4 a5a8
51. f2b6 e7e8
52. a4a5 a8c8
53. a5a6 e5c4
54. d2b4 c4b6
55. b4b6 c8c2
56. f4f2 c2c3
57. g1g2 c3c1
58. b6b7 c1a1
59. a6a7 e8g8
60. b7b8 h7h6
61. f2f8 a1a2
62. g2f3 a2a3
63. f3g4 a3a4
64. g4h3 g8f8
65. b8f8 h8h7
66. f8f5 h7g8
67. f5c8 g8f7
68. c8d7 f7f6
69. d7a4 f6e7
Match game 3
white black
Zarkov Mach-III
(60/15)
1. e2e4 c7c5
2. g1f3 e7e6
3. d2d4 c5d4
4. f3d4 b8c6
5. d4c6 b7c6
6. b1c3 a8b8
7. f1e2 d7d5
8. d1d4 d8b6
9. d4b6 b8b6
10. e4d5 e6d5
11. e1g1 g8f6
12. f1e1 c8d7
13. a2a3 f8d6
14. c3a4 b6b8
15. c1e3 c6c5
16. a4c5 d6c5
17. e3c5 b8b2
18. e1b1 b2b1
19. a1b1 e8d8
20. b1b8 d7c8
21. e2a6 d8c7
22. b8a8 h8e8
23. a8a7 c7c6
24. c5d4 c8a6
25. a7a6 c6b5
26. a6b6 b5a5
27. f2f3 e8e1
28. g1f2 e1d1
29. f2e3 d1e1
30. e3f4 e1e2
31. b6d6 e2g2
32. d4f6 g7f6
33. d6d5 a5a4
34. d5h5 g2c2
35. h5h7 a4a3
36. f4f5 a3b4
37. f5f6 c2c4
38. h7f7 c4h4
39. f7b7 b4c3
40. b7c7 c3d3
41. h2h3 d3e3
42. f3f4 e3f4
43. c7c3 h4h6
44. f6g7 h6b6
45. c3c4 f4g5
46. c4g4 g5h5
47. g4g3 h5h4
48. g3a3 b6g6
49. g7h7 g6g3
50. a3a4 h4h3
51. h7h6
white black
Mach III Zarkov
(60 / 15 )
1-0
1. d2d4 f7f5
2. c2c4 e7e6
3. b1c3 b8c6
4. d4d5 c6e5
5. d5e6 d7e6
6. d1d8 e8d8
7. e2e4 g8f6
8. e4f5 e6f5
9. f2f4 e5d7
10. f1d3 d7c5
11. d3e2 f6e4
12. c3d1 c5e6
13. a2a3 f8c5
14. g1f3 h8e8
15. h1f1 c8d7
16. b2b4 e6d4
17. a1a2 d4e2
18. a2e2 d7e6
19. b4c5 e6c4
20. c1e3 c4e2
21. e1e2 e4c5
22. d1c3 d8c8
23. f3e5 c5d7
24. e5d7 c8d7
25. f1d1 d7c6
26. d1d5 e8f8
27. e3d4 g7g6
28. e2d3 f8c8
29. d5c5 c6d7
30. c5d5 d7e7
31. d4c5 e7e6
32. d5e5 e6f7
33. e5e7 f7g8
34. c5d4 c7c5
35. d4e5 b7b6
36. e7g7 g8f8
37. g7h7 c8e8
38. c3b5 a8d8
39. b5d6 e8e6
40. e5g7 f8e7
41. g7f6 e7d6
42. f6d8 e6e8
43. d8f6 d6e6
44. f6g5 e8c8
45. h7a7 c8h8
46. h2h3 b6b5
47. a7a5 e6d5
48. a5b5 h8a8
49. d3c2 a8a3
50. b5c5 d5d4
51. g5f6 d4c5
52. f6e7 c5d4
This is a good showing by Zarkov.
white black
Mach-III Zarkov
(60 / 15)
0-1
1. e2e4 c7c5
2. g1f3 d8c7
3. d2d4 c5d4
4. f3d4 c7a5
5. b1c3 b8c6
6. d4c6 d7c6
7. f1e2 c8e6
8. e1g1 a8d8
9. c1d2 a5b6
10. d1c1 g8f6
11. d2e3 b6a5
12. a2a3 f6g4
13. e3f4 a5b6
14. h2h3 g4f6
15. f4e3 b6a5
16. f1d1 d8d1
17. c1d1 e6d7
18. d1d4 a7a6
19. e4e5 f6d5
20. a1d1 d7e6
21. c3d5 c6d5
22. d4a7 e6c8
23. e3b6 a5a4
24. d1d5 f7f6
25. d5d8 e8f7
26. d8c8 a4f4
27. e5f6 g7f6
28. b6e3 f4e4
29. e2d3 e4e5
30. a7b7 e5a5
31. b7a6 a5a6
32. d3a6 f8g7
33. a6c4 f7g6
34. c8h8 g7h8
35. b2b4
white black
Mach III Zarkov
(60 / 15)
1/2 - 1/2
1. c2c4 g8f6
2. b1c3 e7e6
3. e2e4 b8c6
4. g1f3 d7d5
5. e4d5 e6d5
6. d2d4 c8g4
7. c4d5 f6d5
8. f1b5 d8e7
9. d1e2 g4f3
10. b5c6 b7c6
11. g2f3 e8c8
12. c1e3 c8b7
13. c3d5 c6d5
14. e2b5 b7c8
15. a2a3 e7f6
16. b5e2 f8d6
17. e2a6 c8d7
18. a6a7 f6f3
19. a7a4 d7e6
20. e1d2 d8b8
21. b2b4 b8a8
22. a4b3 d6f4
23. d2c2 e6d6
24. e3f4 f3f4
25. b3g3 f4g3
26. h2g3 f7f5
27. c2b3 a8e8
28. a1c1 e8e2
29. c1c2 e2e4
30. h1c1 h8c8
31. c2c6 d6d7
32. c6c5 d7d6
33. f2f3 e4e3
34. c5c3 c8e8
35. b3a4 e3c3
36. c1c3 g7g5
37. b4b5 f5f4
38. c3c6 d6d7
39. g3f4 g5f4
40. c6f6 h7h5
41. f6f4 d7d6
42. f4h4 e8h8
43. a4b4 c7c6
44. b5b6 h8b8
45. h4h5 b8b6
46. b4c3 b6b8
47. h5h6 d6d7
48. h6h7 d7d6
49. h7h3 b8f8
50. a3a4 f8f4
51. a4a5 d6c7
52. c3d3 f4f8
53. h3h7 c7d6
54. a5a6 f8f3
55. d3c2 f3a3
56. a6a7 c6c5
57. h7h6 d6c7
58. d4c5 a3a7
59. c2d3 a7a1
60. h6d6 a1d1
61. d3e3 c7b7
62. e3f4 d1c1
63. d6d5 b7c6
64. d5e5 c1c5
65. e5c5 c6c5
A difficult game. Zarkov should have put away the point, but instead
only drew.
white black
Zarkov Mach III
(60 / 15)
1/2 - 1/2
1. e2e4 c7c6
2. d2d4 d7d5
3. e4e5 c8f5
4. f1d3 f5d3
5. d1d3 d8a5
6. b1d2 e7e6
7. g1f3 c6c5
8. e1g1 c5c4
9. d3e2 b8c6
10. a2a3 g8h6
11. a1b1 h6f5
12. c2c3 f8e7
13. b2b4 c4b3
14. b1b3 a8b8
15. c1b2 b7b5
16. g2g4 f5h6
17. g4g5 h6f5
18. f1b1 e8g8
19. e2d3 a5a4
20. b2c1 a7a6
21. d3c2 b8c8
22. c2d3 c6a5
23. b3b2 f8d8
24. g1g2 e7a3
25. b2a2 a5c4
26. b1b4 a3c1
27. a2a4 b5a4
28. d2c4 d5c4
29. d3c2 c1a3
30. b4a4 a3e7
31. a4a6 c8c7
32. h2h3 h7h6
33. g5g6 d8d5
34. c2e2 d5d8
35. g6f7 g8f7
36. f3d2 d8c8
37. a6a4 f5h4
38. g2h2 e7g5
39. d2c4 f7g8
40. c4d6 g5f4
41. h2g1 c7c3
42. e2f1 h4f3
43. g1g2 f3h4
44. g2g1 h4f3
45. g1g2 f3h4
46. g2g1
A great ending! Mach III announces mate in 8 at 26th move.
white black
Mach III Zarkov
(60 / 15)
1 - 0
1. g1f3 g7g6
2. g2g3 f8g7
3. f1g2 e7e5
4. e2e4 d7d5
5. e4d5 e5e4
6. d1e2 d8d5
7. d2d3 c8f5
8. f3h4 f5e6
9. g2e4 d5b5
10. c2c3 g8f6
11. b1a3 b5a6
12. e4g2 e8g8
13. e1g1 f8e8
14. c1e3 e6g4
15. f2f3 f6d5
16. f3g4 d5e3
17. a3c4 g7h6
18. g2d5 g8h8
19. h4g2 a6b5
20. d5f7 e3c4
21. f7e8 b5b2
22. e2e4 b2b6
23. g1h1 c4d6
24. e4e5 h8g8
25. e8f7 g8f8
26. f7g6 (Mach III announces mate in 8)
26. ... f8g8
27. g6f7 g8f8
28. f7d5 h6f4
29. f1f4 d6f5
30. f4f5 b6f6
31. f5f6 f8g7
32. f6f7 g7g6
33. e5f6
white black
Zarkov Mach III
(60 / 15)
0-1
1. d2d4 c7c6
2. e2e4 d7d5
3. e4e5 c8f5
4. g1f3 d8a5
5. b1c3 b8a6
6. f1d3 f5d3
7. d1d3 a6b4
8. d3d2 g7g6
9. e1g1 e8c8
10. a2a3 b4a6
11. b2b4 a5c7
12. d2f4 f7f6
13. b4b5 a6b8
14. e5e6 c7a5
15. f4e3 c6b5
16. e3d3 a7a6
17. c3e2 a5b6
18. d3c3 b6c6
19. c1f4 c6c3
20. e2c3 g6g5
21. f4d2 b8c6
22. h2h3 h7h5
23. c3e2 d8d6
24. f1b1 d6e6
25. g1f1 f8h6
26. f3e1 g5g4
27. d2h6 g8h6
28. h3g4 h6g4
29. e1f3 c8b8
30. e2f4 e6d6
31. b1d1 b5b4
32. a3b4 c6b4
33. f4g6 h8c8
34. a1b1 b4c2
35. g6e7 c8c7
36. e7f5 d6c6
37. d1d2 c2a3
38. b1e1 c6c2
39. e1e8 b8a7
40. e8e2 c2d2
41. e2d2 c7c1
42. f1e2 a3b5
43. f5g3 b5c3
44. e2d3 c3d1
45. g3h1 b7b5
46. d2e2 c1c4
47. e2d2 d1c3
48. h1g3 a6a5
49. d2b2 a7b6
50. b2d2 c3d1
51. g3h1 c4c1
52. d2e2 c1c6
53. e2d2 d1c3
54. h1g3 b5b4
55. d2c2 b6b5
56. g3h5 a5a4
57. h5f4 a4a3
58. c2c1 g4f2
59. d3e3 c3d1
60. e3d2 c6c1
61. d2c1 a3a2
62. c1d2 a2a1
63. d2e1
A squeaker by Zarkov. It manages to get the full point.
white black
Mach III Zarkov
(60 / 15)
0-1
1. e2e3 d7d5
2. g1f3 g8f6
3. f1e2 b8c6
4. d2d4 c8f5
5. e1g1 e7e6
6. f3h4 f5e4
7. f2f3 e4g6
8. h4g6 h7g6
9. c2c4 f8d6
10. g2g3 d5c4
11. e2c4 d8d7
12. b1c3 e8c8
13. c1d2 c6d4
14. e3d4 d6g3
15. h2g3 d7d4
16. g1g2 d4d2
17. d1e2 d2e2
18. c3e2 d8d2
19. f1b1 f6d5
20. g2f2 a7a6
21. f2e1 d2c2
22. c4d3 h8h1
23. e1f2 h1h2
24. f2e1 d5b4
25. d3c2 b4c2
26. e1f1 e6e5
27. a2a3 c2a1
28. b1a1 c8d7
29. a1d1 d7e6
30. d1d2 h2h8
31. e2c3 a6a5
32. b2b3 h8h1
33. f1g2 h1a1
34. a3a4 c7c6
35. c3e4 b7b5
36. e4c5 e6e7
37. d2d7 e7e8
38. d7c7 a1a2
39. g2f1 a2a3
40. f1e2 a3a2
41. e2e3 a2g2
42. g3g4 g2c2
43. c7c6 b5a4
44. b3a4 e8e7
45. e3d3 c2c1
46. d3e4 f7f6
47. e4d5 c1d1
48. d5c4 e7f8
49. c4b5 d1f1
50. c6c8 f8f7
51. c8c7 f7e8
52. b5a5 f1f3
53. c7g7 g6g5
54. g7h7 f3f2
55. a5b5 f2f4
56. c5d7 e5e4
57. b5c4 f4f2
58. c4d5 e8d8
59. d5d6 f2d2
60. d6e6 e4e3
61. d7f6 e3e2
62. h7h8 d8c7
63. h8h1 d2d1
64. f6d5 c7c6
65. d5b4 c6b6
66. a4a5 b6a5
67. b4c6 a5a4
68. c6d4 d1h1
69. d4e2 h1e1
70. e6f6 e1e2
71. f6g5 a4b5
72. g5f6 e2f2
73. f6e6 f2g2
74. e6f5 b5c6
75. g4g5 c6d7
76. f5f6 d7e8
77. f6g6 e8e7
78. g6f5 e7f7
79. g5g6 g2g6
Louis Blair
Some things never change.
Stuart Cracraft (who else?) writes:
>Contestants: Zarkov 1.20 (16mhz 80386 Toshiba 5100)
> Fidelity Mach III (16mhz 68000)
>When: held during November, 1989
>Time control: 60/15
>Match score: Won 6.5 - 3.5 by Mach III
Don't you think that you ought to tell us:
(1) Who conducted this match?
(2) What financial involvement did this person
have in the selling of Zarkov?
(3) How many ten game matches did this person
run before getting the 6.5-3.5 result?
(4) How much variance in the results might one
expect from one match to the next in a ten
game match?
(5) Has this person been changing Zarkov's
opening book in order to improve its
performance against the Mach III?
(6) Does changing a machine's opening book
in this way accomplish anything other than
to improve its performance against one
specific machine?
(7) What is known about the rating of the
Mach III at the 60/15 time control?
(8) What is the rating of the person who
provided the comments for the games?
(9) Would you like me to post copies of some
of our old notes on the subject of Zarkov
and AICHESS?
Stuart Cracraft
>Sigh!
>Some things never change.
>
>Stuart Cracraft (who else?) writes:
>Don't you think that you ought to tell us:
>
>(1) Who conducted this match?
>
I did.
>(2) What financial involvement did this person
>
Only minor to moderate. I wouldn't consider a 6.5-3.5
score vs Mach III particularly good P.R. Blair.
>(3) How many ten game matches did this person
> run before getting the 6.5-3.5 result?
>
One other, also 6.5-3.5. Surprising, ... Blair?
>(4) How much variance in the results might one
>
Maybe 1 or 2 points, depending. Both matches so far have
had identical scores though. Got your goat yet? Really
illogical replies, right?
>(5) Has this person been changing Zarkov's
> opening book in order to improve its
None at all. Not a single move was added in
this manner to the book. You've been reading the
computer chess advertisers claims too often.
>
>(6) Does changing a machine's opening book
> in this way accomplish anything other than
>
Ask some of the manufacturers who've done it.
I wouldn't know. Again, ask computer chess
manufacturers. They may have the most experience.
>(7) What is known about the rating of the
> Mach III at the 60/15 time control?
>
A master at 15 seconds a move. What else?
At 60/15 against people, it would undoubtedly
come out higher rated than its USCF rating.
>(8) What is the rating of the person who
> provided the comments for the games?
>
Haven't played any rated games for years.
Against club and coffee house players, I'm
10w-2l-1d in the past 6 months.
>(9) Would you like me to post copies of some
> of our old notes on the subject of Zarkov
The naivetee of Mr. Blair's uninformed comments is
really awesome. Zarkov and AIChess are at the TOP
of the heap of software PC programs. AiChess is
300 points higher than Sargon 4, 200 points higher
than Chessmaster 2100, and about 125 points above
Zarkov and Psion. You figure the score for Zarkov
vs those below it and to the side.
Mr. Blair's comments are meant to inhibit and misinform.
He is unwilling to say "Yes, world, I Louis Blair was
all wrong." And this is what we're teaching our people at
top institutions? Ha!
--Stuart
Louis Blair
>Some things never change.
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Yes, like uninformed replies.
>It's the melting pot of ignorance.
Is it ignorant to ask questions? How
else does one learn?
Louis Blair writes:
>(1) Who conducted this match?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>I did.
Do you think that you ought to
include this information as a
matter of routine?
Louis Blair writes:
>(2) What financial involvement did this person
>have in the selling of Zarkov?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Only minor to moderate.
Would you care to be a little more specific and let
others decide whether your involvement was "minor
to moderate"? Again, do you think that information
like this should be included as a matter of routine
when reporting test results?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>I wouldn't consider a 6.5-3.5
>score vs Mach III particularly good P.R. Blair.
Did you post a note about a year ago, telling
us that at that time a recent test of Zarkov
(where Zarkov scored 3 out of 10 against the
Mach III) demonstrated that Zarkov had
earned a rating in the range from 2153 to 2190?
Louis Blair writes:
>(3) How many ten game matches did this person
> run before getting the 6.5-3.5 result?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>One other, also 6.5-3.5. Surprising, ... Blair?
Yes, actually. Could you talk about results
reported by you about a year ago? In fact could
you say what your philosophy is about when
results should count and when they should not
count?
Louis Blair writes:
>(4) How much variance in the results might one
> expect from one match to the next in a ten
> game match?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Maybe 1 or 2 points, depending.
You come to this conclusion after only two tests.
How interesting.
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Got your goat yet? Really
>illogical replies, right?
Your doing just fine Stuart. At least
you are answering questions. (Sort
of. Your answer to 2 seems to be a
little bit vague and your answer to 3
is a little bit surprising in view of your
previous notes about Zarkov.) We
will see how long you remain in a
question answering mood.
Louis Blair writes:
>(5) Has this person been changing Zarkov's
> opening book in order to improve its
> performance against the Mach III?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>None at all. Not a single move was added in
>this manner to the book.
In what manner WERE moves added to the
book? Don't you think that you ought to
tell us who wrote the opening book for
Zarkov and who has tried to sell special
extended versions of the opening book
for Zarkov?
Louis Blair writes:
>(6) Does changing a machine's opening book
> in this way accomplish anything other than
> to improve its performance against one
> specific machine?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>I wouldn't know.
Would you consider me to be uninformed and
ignorant if I said that the answer was "for the
most part - no"? Hasn't this issue been discussed
in Larry Kaufman's Computer Chess Reports?
Or don't you read them?
Louis Blair writes:
>(7) What is known about the rating of the
> Mach III at the 60/15 time control?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>A master at 15 seconds a move.
Has anyone tested Mach III at this speed?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>At 60/15 against people, it would undoubtedly
>come out higher rated than its USCF rating.
Is it ALWAYS true that a machine's 60/15
rating is better than its rating at slower speeds?
Also, in your test, was the Mach III's opponent
a machine or a person? Do machine-machine
tests and machine-human tests necessarily give
the same results?
Louis Blair writes:
>(8) What is the rating of the person who
> provided the comments for the games?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Haven't played any rated games for years.
>Against club and coffee house players, I'm
>10w-2l-1d in the past 6 months.
Could you tell us what your rating was at the
time that you stopped playing rated games?
(Of course, you can also give us an estimate
of how much you think that your rating has
improved since then.)
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>AiChess is
>300 points higher than Sargon 4, 200 points higher
>than Chessmaster 2100, and about 125 points above
>Zarkov and Psion.
Who did the testing that produced these conclusions?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>Mr. Blair's comments are meant to inhibit and misinform.
Could you give an example of a piece of misinformation
that I have tried to spread? With regard to inhibithions,
would you care to comment on the ethics of a person
using this communication system to advertise his own
commercial ventures?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>He is unwilling to say "Yes, world, I Louis Blair was
>all wrong."
Would you be good enough to give me an example of
something that I said that was wrong? Also, can you
give us an example where you admitted that you
were wrong? Or do you claim that you have never
been wrong? (Don't forget that 2153-2190 stuff. I
am looking forward to coming back to that subject.)
Let's see if I can help you out on the subject of my
mistakes. I seem to remember that I once mistakenly
identified Saitek as a European company. (I think I
must have been confusing it with the Mephisto company.)
Well, here goes: YES, WORLD, I LOUIS BLAIR WAS
ALL WRONG ABOUT SAITEK. There. Are there
any other mistakes that you would like me to confess
to?
Stuart Cracraft writes:
>And this is what we're teaching our people at
>top institutions? Ha!
Where did you learn, Stuart?
Elliott Winslow
Software in Berkeley, Ca. USA. Then again, the owner is Eric Winkler,
who is Swiss (the Swiss government does not look lightly at people
renouncing citizenship, which he probably isn't doing anyway). Their PR
guys are English. Their top secretary is Canadian. And their main
endorser, Gary Kasparov, well he's a citizen of the Soviet Union,
although he's calling Gorbachev a dictator now, and said at Harvard last
week, laughing: "We don't see any reason to leave right now. We will be
expelled soon."
Elliott