Psion chess uploaded at PITT
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
"Psion," so I uploaded it at ftp.pitt.edu/group/chess/Uploads. The graphics
aren't that great, but it remains one tough-playing program, especially on >=
486 processor. Enjoy!
John
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
Look in ftp.pitt.edu/groups/chess/PROG
Hung N. Nguyen
Feng-Hsiung Hsu
When the Wired magazine journalist was writing his article on Kasparov,
Kasparov stated that he should be given access to endgame databases during
the game if the computer opponent is doing the same.
My opinion is that this depends on what the games are for. The original
goal in computer chess is to create a computer/tool that is good enough
to defeat an (unassisted) human World Champion. Therefore, Kasparov
should not be given access to endgame databases during the games unless he
has lost the Match once already:).
Don Fong
wasn't there another "original" goal also, to gain insight into
human thought processes?
what is the social or scientific value in defeating the (unassisted)
human champion? (this is not a rhetorical question.) and what is the
incentive for the champion to accept conditions that are not to his liking?
also - would this match be considered a "title" match? for that
to happen, the computer would have to earn the right to be a candidate
and a challenger. is that likely to happen?
this raises another question. by the time a human player has
reached the candidate level, there is a considerable "history" that
potential opponents can study and prepare against. a computer might
have very little or no such history, yet still be able to profit by
"studying" the champion's games. is that considered fair?
--- don fong
Feng-Hsiung Hsu
> wasn't there another "original" goal also, to gain insight into
>human thought processes?
Mostly to researchers with psychology or AI background. To me, it is
more interesting to solve the problem WITHOUT gaining insight into
human thought processes. The solution might be easier to apply to
other fields. Similarly, I found solutions that are NOT domain-specific
(or chess-specific in this case) more satisfying.
> what is the social or scientific value in defeating the (unassisted)
>human champion? (this is not a rhetorical question.) and what is the
>incentive for the champion to accept conditions that are not to his liking?
It is simply a milestone. Just like overtaking the ASSISTED human champion
would be yet another milestone. A harder one. I just don't think it
makes sense to go for the hard one before one can demonstrate that the
easy one is reachable.
> also - would this match be considered a "title" match? for that
>to happen, the computer would have to earn the right to be a candidate
>and a challenger. is that likely to happen?
Of course, it cannot be a title match. It would be both a scientific
experiment and, for better or worse, a public spectacle that would very
likely draw more attention than a regular title match. I think it
would be good for chess one way or another.
> this raises another question. by the time a human player has
>reached the candidate level, there is a considerable "history" that
>potential opponents can study and prepare against. a computer might
>have very little or no such history, yet still be able to profit by
>"studying" the champion's games. is that considered fair?
I don't know about other computers, but I do know that Kasparov has or
will have every games that we ever played or will play in public events.
This was the case when he played us in '89, and if we do play him again,
it will be the case.
Mark Crowther
: Just to throw a different spin on the computer debates.
: When the Wired magazine journalist was writing his article on Kasparov,
: Kasparov stated that he should be given access to endgame databases during
: the game if the computer opponent is doing the same.
: My opinion is that this depends on what the games are for. The original
: goal in computer chess is to create a computer/tool that is good enough
: to defeat an (unassisted) human World Champion. Therefore, Kasparov
: should not be given access to endgame databases during the games unless he
: has lost the Match once already:).
This is what I believe the debate comes down to. Whether it is the
interests of the chess playing community that such a match take place.
ie it certainly is in the interests of the computer chess community
but what is the impact on chess as a whole?
It is a red herring to call a computer a player. In its entirity the
computer is a reference tool to allow an operator to play chess. Of course
a computer itself can't "cheat". If (and I believe when) such a match
takes place it needs to be pointed out what an abnormal situation it is,
ie not normal chess at all, but a situation like Jesse Owens racing horses
in the 30's to make some money, a sideshow, which some want to see, but
others regard as a little silly. Certainly chess computers shouldn't play
in normal events for rating etc, as they completely distort the balance of
the event. So I would say that the participation of chess computers breaks
the rules but that of course any event can be an exhibition in which
you can do what you like. (shuffle the pieces, allow consultation
of a computer by an operator to play chess, allow reading of books)
Just don't call it a World Chess Championship ....
--
Mark Crowther - M.D.Cr...@bradford.ac.uk.
www homepage - http://www.brad.ac.uk/~mdcrowth/chess.html
Robert Hyatt
>Feng-Hsiung Hsu <f...@sawmill.watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Just to throw a different spin on the computer debates.
>>
>>When the Wired magazine journalist was writing his article on Kasparov,
>>Kasparov stated that he should be given access to endgame databases during
>>the game if the computer opponent is doing the same.
>>
>>My opinion is that this depends on what the games are for. The original
>>goal in computer chess is to create a computer/tool that is good enough
>>to defeat an (unassisted) human World Champion. Therefore, Kasparov
>>should not be given access to endgame databases during the games unless he
>>has lost the Match once already:).
>
>human thought processes?
>human champion? (this is not a rhetorical question.) and what is the
>incentive for the champion to accept conditions that are not to his liking?
>
>to happen, the computer would have to earn the right to be a candidate
>and a challenger. is that likely to happen?
>reached the candidate level, there is a considerable "history" that
>potential opponents can study and prepare against. a computer might
>have very little or no such history, yet still be able to profit by
>"studying" the champion's games. is that considered fair?
>
Seems irrelevant... Deep Thought has played more than a "few"
games, and they have been widely published. Same for HiTech.
In fact, for the potential challengers for Kasparov, I can't
think of a one that hasn't had plenty of games published.
*Every* computer vs computer game at the annual ACM and at the
computer world championships have been published, some annotated
by GM's, etc.
However, to say it's not "fair" is completely true since *no*
computer vs human game can be "fair" with the contestents so
intrinsically different. I would still maintain, however, that
while not "fair" neither side has an overwhelming advantage,
otherwise you have to concede that the contest is "over."
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Don Fong
Feng-Hsiung Hsu <fh...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3nk8hu$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> wasn't there another "original" goal also, to gain insight into
>>human thought processes?
>
>more interesting to solve the problem WITHOUT gaining insight into
>human thought processes.
that is somewhat different from what you said before, quote:
``The original goal in computer chess is to create a computer/tool that is
good enough to defeat an (unassisted) human World Champion.''
>The solution might be easier to apply to
>other fields. Similarly, I found solutions that are NOT domain-specific
>(or chess-specific in this case) more satisfying.
yes, i am curious how your chess machine might be applied to other
fields. (this is not a rhetorical question.)
>> what is the social or scientific value in defeating the (unassisted)
>>human champion? (this is not a rhetorical question.) and what is the
>>incentive for the champion to accept conditions that are not to his liking?
>
>It is simply a milestone. Just like overtaking the ASSISTED human champion
>would be yet another milestone. A harder one. I just don't think it
>makes sense to go for the hard one before one can demonstrate that the
>easy one is reachable.
i can't disagree with these last 2 statements. but there is an
equally valid alternative path with reasonable milestones: why not play
ASSISTED humans below the championship level and work your way up?
it seems to me that computer researchers' eagerness to have a shot
at the world champion is not motivated purely by scientific values.
[...]
>Of course, it cannot be a title match.
why "of course"?
[...]
>I think it
>would be good for chess one way or another.
if the computer wins, a lot of people will give up the game.
i don't think that will be good for chess. a lot of people have given
up already in anticipation. i don't think that's good either. there
will be a significant social impact from this scientific pursuit.
maybe somehow its scientific value will outweigh its social costs.
but i don't think it will be good for chess.
[...]
>>reached the candidate level, there is a considerable "history" that
>>potential opponents can study and prepare against. a computer might
>>have very little or no such history, yet still be able to profit by
>>"studying" the champion's games. is that considered fair?
>
>I don't know about other computers, but I do know that Kasparov has or
>will have every games that we ever played or will play in public events.
but is it comparable to the number of games a human challenger would
have played? and are they played by the same hardware and software?
IF not - then to compensate, i would propose that the computer side should
be required to play some number of matches --- on the same hardware and
software --- against candidate-level GM's first. to allow the human
champion a better basis for match preparation.
thanks for responding to my previous questions and opinions.
--- don fong
Unknown
UU> >>I noticed a few people were inquiring about the old Richard Lang progra
UU> >> "Psion," so I uploaded it at ftp.pitt.edu/group/chess/Uploads. The
UU> graphics
UU> >>aren't that great, but it remains one tough-playing program, especially
UU> >=
UU> >>486 processor. Enjoy!
UU> >>John
UU> >
UU> >Hey, it ain't there!
UU> >
UU> Look in ftp.pitt.edu/groups/chess/PROG
Right... files uploaded to the Uploads area are redistributed to the
appropriate subdirectories as they are sent out on the Fido Filebone &
FileGate systems.
group/chess/Uploads is for contributions... The other subdirectories are
for archiving/downloading, and follow the area tags listed below, less
'CHS-'. In the case of GRAF, the subdir. is GRAPHICS:
% FDN: CHESS - Chess Files Distribution Net
% Headquarters: Doug Attig, 1:138/239
% Info File: FDNINFO.ZIP
% Backbone Conferences: CHESS_TOURNEY
% Related Conferences:
% Planet Connect: Yes
% Internet: ftp.pitt.edu
% Last Update: 4/16/95
%
Area CHS-UPLD 0 !*& CHS: Incoming Files to Headquarters
Area CHS-CA 0 ! CHS: Chess Assistant Data Files
Area CHS-CB 0 ! CHS: ChessBase Data Files
Area CHS-PGN 0 ! CHS: PGN-formatted Files
Area CHS-NICB 0 ! CHS: NICBase Data Files
Area CHS-BU 0 ! CHS: Bookup Data Files
Area CHS-EDUC 0 ! CHS: Educational Files & Programs
Area CHS-GRAF 0 ! CHS: Chess Graphics & Art
Area CHS-PROG 0 ! CHS: Chess-Playing Programs
Area CHS-UTIL 0 ! CHS: Recorders, Readers, other utilities
Area CHS-DTP 0 ! CHS: Desktop Publishing & Authoring Utilities
Area CHS-TEXT 0 ! CHS: ASCII Text Files (other than PGN)
Area CHS-REV 0 ! CHS: Software Reviews
Area CHS-NEWS 0 ! CHS: Chess News Text Files
Best,
Doug
doug....@rook.wa.com
Fidonet: 1:138/239
1:138/272 (Mail-Only)
* WCE 1.5/2269 *
Guido Stepken
: In article <3nfab7$e...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, hnguyen@runner (Hung N. Nguyen) says:
: >
: >In article <95112.173...@uicvm.uic.edu> <U31...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
: >>I noticed a few people were inquiring about the old Richard Lang program
: >> "Psion," so I uploaded it at ftp.pitt.edu/group/chess/Uploads. The graphics
: >>aren't that great, but it remains one tough-playing program, especially on >=
: >>486 processor. Enjoy!
: >>John
: >
: >Hey, it ain't there!
: >
:
: Look in ftp.pitt.edu/groups/chess/PROG
:
Good, but without search-extension and looking just 8 plies deep, but
assembler coded.
Guido
Anders Thulin
> [ about ftp.pitt.edu ]
I must ask -- can anyone else reach this node on FTP? I've been
trying a few times without success. After some internal FTP
handshaking the connection does dead.
Probably not of wide interest -- please mail.
--
Anders Thulin a...@linkoping.trab.se 013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>May I repeat that once ?
>
>As far as I know, Psion was never released in Public Domain (nor in Shareware)
>The version 1.1 that circulates is a cracked one. Please stop
>distributing this one.
>
Wrong. This version of Psion has been shareware for quit a few years now. It
has been offerred for sale by The Software Labs, a well known shareware dealer,
for a while under the name "3-D Chess" (disk #205 in their inventory).
John Pandis
>BTW the Better Psion program are version > 2.13 !
>
>
>-- Jean-Christophe Weill.
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>In article <3o33c7$l...@sheckley.cnam.fr>, j...@cnam.cnam.fr (Jean-Christophe ll) says:
>Wei
>>
>>May I repeat that once ?
>>
>>As far as I know, Psion was never released in Public Domain (nor in
>Shareware)
>>The version 1.1 that circulates is a cracked one. Please stop
>>distributing this one.
>>
>
>Wrong. This version of Psion has been shareware for quit a few years now. It
>has been offerred for sale by The Software Labs, a well known shareware
>dealer,
> for a while under the name "3-D Chess" (disk #205 in their inventory).
> John Pandis
>
Correction: Psion has been in the public domain for a while. In retrospect, I
could not recall any text files mentioning the conditions of use as shareware.
JP
John Quill Taylor
: Correction: Psion has been in the public domain for a while. In retrospect, I
: could not recall any text files mentioning the conditions of use as shareware.
: JP
: >>BTW the Better Psion program are version > 2.13 !
i have 2.13 and find it is stronger in the endgame in some positions
than m-chess pro 4.0! if psion is shareware, i would like to know where
to send the money - i have used it for years!
__
John Quill Taylor / /\
Writer at Large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MST = GMT - 7) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do."
John Quill Taylor
: >U31...@uicvm.uic.edu wrote:
: >
: >: Correction: Psion has been in the public domain for a while.
: >: In retrospect, I could not recall
: >: any text files mentioning the conditions of use as shareware.
: >: JP
: >
: >: >>BTW the Better Psion program are version > 2.13 !
: >
: >i have 2.13 and find it is stronger in the endgame in some positions
: >than m-chess pro 4.0! if psion is shareware, i would like to know where
: >to send the money - i have used it for years!
: >John Quill Taylor
:
: Where can one get Psion 2.13? I also have used the earlier version
: of Psion. ( Which I purchased from a major shareware company.)
i uploaded psion 2.13 to ftp.pitt.edu as a self-extract executable.
please tell me where the creator is if you know, because i have
used psion for years and i would like to compensate the author.
as i have told some people, psion 2.13 is very strong, especially
in the endgame, where it often outperforms my m-chess pro 4.0 on
my pentium (in some positions - not all).
the opening book of psion is rather limited, and features are few,
but it does sport multi-lingual menus! and psion runs as a DOS program
under windows with no apparent loss in speed or performance.
futhermore, it NEVER crashes, even with 8-queen-type problems
running all week!
also, i e-mailed psion 2.13 to all who asked me by e-mail, which
kept me very busy today! i sent it to about 50 people! i tried,
as suggested, to load it to chess.onenet.net & ics.onenet.net
but neither liked me as guest or anonymous. if there is enough
interest, i can post the uuencoded file in rec.games.chess!!
it is only about 100 Kbytes.
Robert Harrington
>
>: Correction: Psion has been in the public domain for a while. In
retrospect, I
>: could not recall any text files mentioning the conditions of use as
shareware.
>: JP
>
>: >>BTW the Better Psion program are version > 2.13 !
>
>i have 2.13 and find it is stronger in the endgame in some positions
>than m-chess pro 4.0! if psion is shareware, i would like to know where
>to send the money - i have used it for years!
>
>
>John Quill Taylor
Where can one get Psion 2.13? I also have used the earlier version
of Psion. ( Which I purchased from a major shareware company.)
NM Robert Harrington - rhinar/fics
Hung N. Nguyen
Wasn't John Taylor going to post it somewhere as he said?
Rebooting the PC each time after playing a game is quite
disheartening.
Hung N. Nguyen
>Robert Harrington (harri...@delphi.com) wrote:
>: >U31...@uicvm.uic.edu wrote:
>: >
>: >: Correction: Psion has been in the public domain for a while.
>: >: In retrospect, I could not recall
>: >: any text files mentioning the conditions of use as shareware.
>: >: JP
>: >
>: >: >>BTW the Better Psion program are version > 2.13 !
>: >
>: >i have 2.13 and find it is stronger in the endgame in some positions
>: >than m-chess pro 4.0! if psion is shareware, i would like to know where
>: >to send the money - i have used it for years!
>: >
>: >John Quill Taylor
>:
>: Where can one get Psion 2.13? I also have used the earlier version
>: of Psion. ( Which I purchased from a major shareware company.)
>
>i uploaded psion 2.13 to ftp.pitt.edu as a self-extract executable.
>
Thank you. May I add that psion.exe is in the directory group/chess/Uploads.
OldPhoenix
I have a Mac version of Psion, which does fairly well.
Does anyone have any surefire benchmarks that determine what
version you have? (I'm running it on an older machine that's been
upgraded to oblivion, so it doesn't really match any commercial
configurations.)
---Vendar Forrissen
Walker Andrew John
at the ics archive?
--
*********************************
* Andrew Walker *
* ja...@uow.edu.au *
*********************************
Alan W Braswell
> How does psion rate in strength compared with the other programs
>at the ics archive?
commonly available for download (public domain, freeware, shareware).
I have a number of these in my library, including: Cyrus, Power Chess,
Ed Chess, Gnu Chess (windows), Now (shareware version), and a few
others now worth mentioning. I and two USCF Masters have evaluated
these programs extensively and found Psion to be clearly the strongest
of the bunch.
In fairness, it should be noted that Psion was not originally intended
to be shareware or public domain.
Regards,
Alan
Alan Braswell
Houston, Texas