🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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.)