Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2075 rec.games.chess:5212 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!cmcl2!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+ From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,rec.games.chess Subject: Re: Chess program recommendation wanted (for IBM) Message-ID: Date: 27 Sep 90 16:03:53 GMT References: <1399@pedsga.UUCP> <6302@hub.ucsb.edu> <85.26ff813b@inland.com>, <1990Sep27.121239.5258@cs.rochester.edu> Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: <1990Sep27.121239.5258@cs.rochester.edu> pals@inland.com wrote: >Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it >and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly >misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, >maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. Ray Frank writes: >Where did you get the idea that Chessmaster 2000 or 2100 had any kind of >rating at all let alone one of 1900 or 2000? ... Do you have any documentation >that says these are the official USCF ratings? Mr. Frank, I do not think that you read the note correctly. pals@inland.com was obviously only giving us his own estimate of the strength of Chessmaster 2100. You may disagree with that estimate, but don't try to make people think that he was claiming to present an "official USCF rating". He obviously was not. His main point was that "2100 is a terribly misleading name" and I agree with that.