Novag Super Constellation strength
da...@twics.co.jp
Hallsworth's list of computer program strengths. Eric's ratings all seem
to be around 100 points lower than those from Computer Chess Reports
Quarterly, so it's probably around 1900 USCF; bang in the middle of class
A - not bad.
If, as the USCF do, we take 200 points as a difference in class,
we have the Novag Super Forte/Expert B (2010) and Mephisto Mega 4/5
(2007) as clearly stonger machines. Can anyone put a figure on a clearly
noticeable increase in Computer playing strength?
Eric's list has 148 chess machines and programs but I don't
want to do all that typing. Can someone, however, post an abbreviated
version of Arpad elo's ratings difference and game result probability
table?
Eric sells dedicated machines and software from the U.K, and
spends a lot of time testing and rating chess machines and software. He
publishes 6 news sheets of his findings each year but I don't know how
much it costs to subscribe. Phone +44 258 840 285 or write to: The
Specialists, PO Box 759, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 5YH, U.K.
Peter Dawes, Tokyo.
Mark A Zabel
> Novag Super Constellation's rating is 1807 elo on Eric
>Hallsworth's list of computer program strengths. Eric's ratings all seem
>to be around 100 points lower than those from Computer Chess Reports
>Quarterly, so it's probably around 1900 USCF; bang in the middle of class
>A - not bad.
Actually, when this came out (1985 or so) it was USCF
certified at 2018. The Novag Super Con was a computer
most fun to play with, as it constantly sacked the
exchange, or a piece for 3 Ps - and it usually tried
to push its Ps aggressively.
-Mark
ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON
tends to make moves that are a little speculative at times.
Ralf Stephan
> While it is fun to play, it's play is a little too agressive. It
> tends to make moves that are a little speculative at times.
Yes, but that makes its play more interesting. For a long time it was
the only chess computer that played a "Trojan knight" sacrifice on h7/h2
and on the same time didn't accept the sacrifice when played against it.
Also, it had for a long time the best KBN vs K endgame handling.
I think this chess computer is a real classic.
(I won several correspondence chess games with it, two with mates in six
and ten, respectively)
ralf
--
*****************************************
"... duck and cover!" (Burt The Turtle)
Jeffrey C. Ely
>Tony-P...@cup.portal.com (ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON) writes:
>> While it is fun to play, it's play is a little too agressive. It
>> tends to make moves that are a little speculative at times.
>
>Yes, but that makes its play more interesting. For a long time it was
>the only chess computer that played a "Trojan knight" sacrifice on h7/h2
>and on the same time didn't accept the sacrifice when played against it.
>
>Also, it had for a long time the best KBN vs K endgame handling.
>I think this chess computer is a real classic.
>
>(I won several correspondence chess games with it, two with mates in six
>and ten, respectively)
it kind of seems like you are saying that you won correspondence games
*using* this computer, but you must mean *against* this computer because
you must realize that using a computer for analysis in a (official)
correspondence game is illegal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely | "He said the Sun's not yellow...
Department of Economics | It's Chicken!"
UC Berkeley |
je...@econ.berkeley.edu |
Mark A Zabel
>>and ten, respectively)
>
>*using* this computer, but you must mean *against* this computer because
>you must realize that using a computer for analysis in a (official)
>correspondence game is illegal.
>
where using a computer is *legal*. I don't play postal, so
I really have no idea. Maybe someone could clear this up for me.
-Mark
Jeffrey A Golds
for analysis purposes. There was a recent Chess Life acticle by Alex
Dunne where he gives a couple of Ron Burnett's games in a computer-assisted
correspondence tournament that Ron won.
Incidentally, using computers in correspondence chess is really only likely
to help avoid major blunders, as most computers that people have access
to are just not strong enough to be any good at correspondence chess.
The main problem is the exponential growth of nodes to search as the search
depth increases. Thus, most computers will not search much further in
a correspondence game than they would over-the-board.
Jeff
Ralf Stephan
> In article <2b56f21...@ark.abg.sub.org> ra...@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stepha
> n) writes:
> >(I won several correspondence chess games with it, two with mates in six
> >and ten, respectively)
>
> it kind of seems like you are saying that you won correspondence games
> *using* this computer, but you must mean *against* this computer because
> you must realize that using a computer for analysis in a (official)
> correspondence game is illegal.
Nope, *using*. I also used the ECO. And my mind (the computer would
never have been able to see a mate in ten).
Is this illegality a recent development? The games were in 1983/4, I think,
and since that I stopped playing correspondence chess - so I don't have any
rating/success derived from these games.
Also, these were national (Germany) tournament games - a difference?
Thanks for any info,
Patrick Blanchard
Pardon my ignorance but just what are the mechanics of using a computer in a
correspondence game (official or otherwise)? It just feels to me
like...well...not quite right somehow. Doesn't it mean the player with the
better chess program (and/or the more powerful computer) has an unfair
advantage? And the guy without a computer-is it ethical for him to
analyse positions with a friend who may be a much stronger player than himself?
Patrick Blanchard,
Information Technology Services,
University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia.
Robert Hyatt
1. Yes, it is unethical.
2. No, there is not much that can be done about it. It is simply too easy
to give a position to your machine, and let it crank on it all night. Or,
you can let the machine play the opposite side, and make your move and let
it crank all night to make sure there is no tactical oversight on your
part, or ..... The possibilities are (a) endless (b) impossible to
prevent (c) unfair. The correct answer is: (all of the above.)
We have had a similar problem in the computer chess events over the years.
I (and many others) have been accused of cheating, because our program would
make some move "that no machine could make" in someone's opinion. If I wanted
to cheat and give Cray Blitz advice (It would make just as much sense for me
to give Kasparov advice... considering the difference in my rating and either
of these two opponents..) it would be trivial and hard to detect. For example,
the timing between keystrokes could impart information to the program. I
could therefore indicate "this position is dangerous, use twice as much time
as normal" or "the capture is obvious, make it quickly" etc.
My own personal philosophy has therefore been to assume honesty and not worry
about it. You only lose sleep over it without resolving anything. I wouldn't
object to playing a computer correspondence game, but I would want to know
who/what I was playing. I don't like the "hidden" computer helping my
opponent, but don't know what I would do (could do) to stop it, other than
by playing only opponents that I know well... which sort of defeats the
purpose of correspondence chess, doesn't it? Since there is nothing you
can do, I suggest ignoring the problem completely.
Bob Hyatt
--
!Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences !
!hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Simon Fitzpatrick
tournaments is not forbidden, according to a letter from Ragnar Wikman,
ICCF Tournament Director, in the November 1991 Australian C C Quarterly.
However the Correspondence Chess League of Australia banned the use of
computers in correspondence chess by Australian players in November 1990
with the exception of a new class of tournament that explicitly invites the
use of computers.
Have other national C C federations made formal decisions about computers
in correpondence chess, and if so, what was decided and when?
Henry Choy
: it kind of seems like you are saying that you won correspondence games
: *using* this computer, but you must mean *against* this computer because
: you must realize that using a computer for analysis in a (official)
: correspondence game is illegal.
Do you mean a criminal code offense?
--
Henry Choy
ch...@cs.usask.ca
What rolls down stairs alone or in pairs This has been brought to
Rolls over your neighbor's dog? you by the numbers 4
What's great for a snack and fits on your back? and 9 and the letter P.
It's Log, Log, Log! -- "The Log Song", from -- Big Bird
Ren & Stimpy
Math is tough! -- Barbie
Frank Geider
> je...@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
> > In article <2b56f21...@ark.abg.sub.org> ra...@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stepha
> > n) writes:
> > >(I won several correspondence chess games with it, two with mates in six
> > >and ten, respectively)
> >
> > it kind of seems like you are saying that you won correspondence games
> > *using* this computer, but you must mean *against* this computer because
> > you must realize that using a computer for analysis in a (official)
> > correspondence game is illegal.
It's no article in the International Correspondance Chess Federation (ICCF)
rules of play wich speak of using computer for correspondance game.
When you play correspondance chess game, you have always the possibility
helping with books, review a.s.o...
Also indeed, but very fair play, to take help from other player.
So why not using a computer ...
I think it's for that idea ICCF don't forbid the computer, no possibilites
to verify it ...
Oh, I'm not using computer for correspondance chess but I think it would be
the advice of man who use it ...
Bien Amicalement
Frank Geider
__
/// Versailles ATACOM's Point
__ /// USENET: gei...@amigdr.gna.org
\\\/// or : gei...@amigdr.fr.mugnet.org
\XX/ FIDO: 2:320/104.10 - AMIGANET: 39:180/1.10