skip@ubvax.UUCP (Skip Addison Jr) (11/28/85)
Can someone explain to me the system for describing a chess skill level?
Also, has anyone compiled a list of software packages and their skill? I'm
sure that the "grading" is ambiguous, but I'm still interested in hearing,
for example, how SARGON III on the PC ranks compared with other human and
machine chess masters.
-- Skip Addison
amd!ubvax!skip
(* I'd make an unlikely Ungermann-Bass spokesperson, so don't blame
U-B for anything I say. *)ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/30/85)
> Can someone explain to me the system for describing a chess skill level? > Also, has anyone compiled a list of software packages and their skill? I'm > sure that the "grading" is ambiguous, but I'm still interested in hearing, > for example, how SARGON III on the PC ranks compared with other human and > machine chess masters. > > -- Skip Addison > amd!ubvax!skip > (* I'd make an unlikely Ungermann-Bass spokesperson, so don't blame > U-B for anything I say. *) I doubt the Sargon III playes above 1800 on the PC. The only chess machine with an offical USCF rating is the Super Con- stellation, with a rating of about 2017. Chess ratings given to people are meaningless numbers to those who've never played tournament chess. To those who've played for a time in USCF tournaments, a sort of relative value of chess ratings becomes apparent. I once heard it this way: An average non-tournament chess player would be destroyed by an average USCF player. The average chess player would after a year of tournaments obtain a rating of between 1200 and 1400 points. The average of veteran tournament players is between 1450 and 1550 points. The chess player of average ability can expect with some devoted effort on his/her part a rating of 1800 within five years of tournament play. After 1800, it becomes increasingly difficult to improve your rating without a certain amount of serious devotion to the game, in other words, you must become a serious student of chess. Again, these figures are for players of average ability, intelligence, devotion, etc. After 2000, it becomes a study in frustation. The magic mark being 2200, or the mark of the master. I've known several above average students of the game that became 'stuck' between 2000 and 2200 for 10 years before reaching this summit. Between 2200 and 2400, you are called a chess master. But, you are not even close to being alowed to tie the shoe laces of the likes of Bobby Fischer, Spassky, Kasporov, etc. Between 2400 and 2600 (maybe 2500), you are a grand master. It is now that you go hunting for big game. After 2600, you are an international grand master. Fischer, I believe, 'retired' with a rating of over 2700 points. After 2200 points, you either devote your entire life to chess or forget about ever going any higher. You are, at 2200 points, an undergraduate. Now you must decide if you are going for your masters and ultimately your PHD. Those of you who are graduate students know how much work is involved. So the next time you purchase a chess machine with a rating of 2000, you are in effect playing against an opponent with perhaps ten years rigorous tournament experience. Those of you who've played tournament chess know just how rigorous this 'pass time' can be. In one 7 game tournament over a three day weekend, I logged in 36 hours of chess, I was leading my division (1400-1600) in entering the last game, which lasted 6 hours. I sort of began to imagine my opponent as a mack truck, I felt like I was on drugs. I was literally exhausted mentally, I almost didn't show up for the last game, I should'nt have, because I lost. I didn't sleep at all that night, not because I lost, but because my brain would'nt slow down. This was 12 years ago, I haven't played in tournaments for at least 5 years now. I want to conserve what little brain cells I have left. By the way, that long tournament netted me only about 20 points. I hope my figures don't cause controversy. Remember, these are loose averages. You know, ball park type figures for someone to go on. The higher you go the harder it is to go higher. Einstein and chess relativity? ray (only a pawn in the game of life with no hope of queening.)
johnk@bocklin.UUCP (12/03/85)
> Between 2400 and 2600 (maybe 2500), > you are a grand master. It is now that you go hunting for big game. After > 2600, you are an international grand master. It is important not to confuse the USCF rating system (of our national organization) with the FIDE rating system (of the *inter*national organization). While the two ratings are similar, it is not uncommon for a 2200 USCF player to maintain a 2150 FIDE rating. The highest title which can be achieved within the USCF is that of "Senior Master," which comes with a rating of 2400+. To achieve an international title such as "International Master" or "International Grandmaster," one must achieve a set performance result (a "norm") against other internationally titled players within a set time frame; the international titles are *not* based on rating. -- === John Kececioglu "In sunken Rlyeh, dead Cthulhu waits, dreaming ...." -- H. P. Lovecraft
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (12/03/85)
Just a bit of clarification to an otherwise excellent summary: Ray Frank writes: > Between 2200 and 2400, you are called a chess master. But, >you are not even close to being alowed to tie the shoe laces of the likes >of Bobby Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, etc. Between 2400 and 2600 (maybe 2500), >you are a grand master. It is now that you go hunting for big game. After >2600, you are an international grand master. As far as I know, the title "grandmaster" is not used by any national chess federations (USCF, CFC, etc.). The only grandmaster is an IGM, international grandmaster. IGM and IM (intl. master) are titles which don't depend on having a specific rating, but on achieving high scores in particular tournaments. (For example, to become an IGM you have to score over N points in each of three round-robin tournaments, where N is determined by the number of IGMs in the tournaments.) The international titles are granted by FIDE, the Federation Internationale des Echecs. They're life titles - even if your rating goes down, you don't lose the title. For example, Geza Fuster, former champion of Hungary, received his IM many years ago (in the 50s, I believe). He's still active in Toronto tournaments, where his rating has been in the 2000-2100 range for at least 10 years. He has no published FIDE *rating* any more, since he hasn't played in FIDE-rated tournaments in a while. (FIDE publishes ratings along the same scale as the national ratings; a player's USCF, CFC and FIDE ratings are likely to be quite close to each other.) Ray's comments about the effort involved in playing in a tournament are right on the money. I haven't played tournament chess for about 9 years, but I can remember it vividly. The best word to describe it is DRAINING. By the way, I wouldn't say the difference between a 2200 player and an IGM is *that* large. Certainly the IGM will win the majority of games, but take this example: in the 1976 Canadian Open, I was rated 1438 (although my performance rating in the tournament was 2105 and my rating went up to 1763.) In round 5, with 3.5/4, I played a Larry Evans (no, not *the* Larry Evans, a different one), rated about 2200. His only half-point lost was against Arthur Bisguier, an honest-to-goodness IGM. Bisguier's no world champion, but is (or was, haven't heard about him recently) a perfectly competent grandmaster. I drew against Evans. So I drew a guy who drew an IGM, in serious tournament play. Let's just say IGMs are better - a whole lot better - than "other" players. But they're not worlds apart. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
ron@ada-uts.UUCP (12/04/85)
I think that the previous description of ratings (and their meanings)
is fairly accurate. The only significant correction that I can think of
concerns the title of grandmaster/international grandmaster. (These two
are synonymous.) This is an international title, bestowed on players
who perform extrememly well in international competiition (equivalent to
a high international rating.) The United States and FIDE rating systems
are based on the same statistical methodology (the ELO system), but do
have some slight differences. There is a strong correlation between the
relative strengths of players under the two systems.
Anyway, becoming a grandmaster means that you've not only got to be
good; you've also got to play in the correct (international) tournaments.zarifes@bnrmtv.UUCP (Kenneth Zarifes) (12/05/85)
> 2600, you are an international grand master. Fischer, I believe, 'retired' > with a rating of over 2700 points. After 2200 points, you either devote Bobby Fischer retired with a rating of 2810...the highest rating of any chess player in history. This record still stands today. -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!zarifes --Ken Zarifes
vis@hector.UUCP (Tom Courtney) (12/05/85)
Actually, it is not so simple. People rated above 2400 by the USCF are "senior masters". The way you become an international master/grandmaster, etc. is to play in some number of tournaments which have a minimum strength level, and do well (called "achieving a grandmaster norm"). As you can imagine, this is often hard to do, simce many of these tournaments are by invitation only (how do you think they keep the strength up?), and getting invited is no mean feat.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (12/06/85)
> Actually, it is not so simple. People rated above 2400 by the USCF are "senior > masters". The way you become an international master/grandmaster, etc. is to > play in some number of tournaments which have a minimum strength level, and do > well (called "achieving a grandmaster norm"). As you can imagine, this is often > hard to do, simce many of these tournaments are by invitation only (how do you > think they keep the strength up?), and getting invited is no mean feat. You're right, it's no mean feat, any 16 year old can do it with 20 years experi- ence.