A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Quickest Mate by Chess-Challenger



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 17th 09, 11:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc
help bot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,302
Default Quickest Mate by Chess-Challenger

On Mar 15, 10:49*pm, madams wrote:

I think you should reflect on the 'competition' giving special attention
to the vintage CC7's reputed Elo..

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tluif/chescom/EngCc7.html



Hmm...

The number "1311" seems a bit odd, as does
testing against Fritz8 one-ply.

As I recall (!), this machine had a level at which
it cranked for twenty minutes per move, and no
"beginner", as indicated at your link, would be
likely to survive very long. The program's weak-
ness was that it sped up dramatically once the
pieces were traded off, but by then most weakies,
as they were then called, would have a dead lost
game anyway.

This machine knew the openings, control of the
center, how to activate the King in the endgame,
and the importance of mobility, or piece activity.
It looked deeper when there were checks or
captures, and it made basically correct calcula-
tions, apart from a Knight getting trapped in a
corner and that sort of thing.

Sure, on the modern lists, where Rybka weighs
in at 3200+, you can get an old machine down to
such a number as "1311". But on the old lists--
the ones which were valid at the time these
machines actually lived and were not yet relics,
such a number represented a human player
who habitually made crude tactical blunders
(want to see my games?).

Still, if you want to be a hard case and limit
thinking time to just a minute or two per move,
you can say the lower to middle levels were
only 1311ish. But that is to ignore the fact
that back then, folks were quite willing to make
allowances for these feeble-minded creatures,
just as, say, Rybka does for us humans today.

Heck, I believe the CC7 even had a "postal"
level, which cranked for around 24 hours per
move. A human player rated 1311 USCF at
the time would have been crushed like a
chicken in the road... .


-- help bot

  #2  
Old May 2nd 09, 07:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc
madams[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 717
Default Quickest Mate by Chess-Challenger

help bot wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:49 pm, madams wrote:

I think you should reflect on the 'competition' giving special attention
to the vintage CC7's reputed Elo..

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tluif/chescom/EngCc7.html


Hmm...

The number "1311" seems a bit odd, as does
testing against Fritz8 one-ply.


Not really, CC7 has I think 7 levels so 1311 Elo = level 2 say, as
suggested by the data:

White: Fritz 8 (1 ply)

Black: Chess Challenger 7 ( 15 seconds / move)

(Result: drawn)

As I recall (!), this machine had a level at which
it cranked for twenty minutes per move,


Yep! - that's right, Level 5 or 'tournament level' maybe ~ 1750 Elo if
you could stand the wait...

Level 6 = "postal" like you said below & Level 7 'infinity' whatever
that meant back then (1979)..

m.

and no
"beginner", as indicated at your link, would be
likely to survive very long. The program's weak-
ness was that it sped up dramatically once the
pieces were traded off, but by then most weakies,
as they were then called, would have a dead lost
game anyway.

This machine knew the openings, control of the
center, how to activate the King in the endgame,
and the importance of mobility, or piece activity.
It looked deeper when there were checks or
captures, and it made basically correct calcula-
tions, apart from a Knight getting trapped in a
corner and that sort of thing.

Sure, on the modern lists, where Rybka weighs
in at 3200+, you can get an old machine down to
such a number as "1311". But on the old lists--
the ones which were valid at the time these
machines actually lived and were not yet relics,
such a number represented a human player
who habitually made crude tactical blunders
(want to see my games?).

Still, if you want to be a hard case and limit
thinking time to just a minute or two per move,
you can say the lower to middle levels were
only 1311ish. But that is to ignore the fact
that back then, folks were quite willing to make
allowances for these feeble-minded creatures,
just as, say, Rybka does for us humans today.

Heck, I believe the CC7 even had a "postal"
level, which cranked for around 24 hours per
move. A human player rated 1311 USCF at
the time would have been crushed like a
chicken in the road... .

-- help bot

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 19th 06 06:15 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.