Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2130 rec.games.chess:5218
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!ray
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess program recommendation wanted (for IBM)
Message-ID: <1990Sep28.194112.18406@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 90 19:41:12 GMT
References: <1399@pedsga.UUCP> <6302@hub.ucsb.edu> <85.26ff813b@inland.com> <1990Sep27.121239.5258@cs.rochester.edu> <Ib0W=dW00WI_4xK0V5@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept
Lines: 46

In article <Ib0W=dW00WI_4xK0V5@andrew.cmu.edu> lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>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.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit.  But most of the chess computers out
there today are being sold with manufacturers 'claims' of strengh of
their product.  Why do you think Radio Shack labels their chess computers
as 2150 or 1850, etc?  And why do you think that the PC chess programs
are called Chessmaster 2000 or 2100?  It is to give people the impression
that this is their rating or close to their rating when in fact there
is not the smallest bit of evidence from these companies to merit such
rating estimates.   So naturally if someone says that they think that
this or that computer has this or that rating I cry fowl and say put up
or shutup.  Either get the machine officially rated or don't make false
assumptions and wild claims regarding its strength.   The fact that the
above poster says that he feels ripped off because Chessmaster 2100 in
fact does not play 2100 rated chess proves my point.  This false and
misleading advertising sells products.
There are very few comsumer items out there that can be given virtually
absolute numbers for comparison purposes.  Cars can't, TV's can't, etc.
If Chevy says their car is better than Fords there is no real way to
prove it.  It is just pure advertising bullshit.  But chess computers can
be given fairly accurate ratings which tells the consumer which is best
and which is not.  My point is that if a computer is not officially rated it
is a mere bag of shells and any claim to fame is pure misleading bullshit by
the companies and sometimes even by the owners themselves.  
Comsumers should try and realize that not only are the oil companies and
Iraqs out to rip us off but also too are the chess computer manufacturers
with their false claims and misleading advertisments of their products.

ray