Ron Nelson Ever Copied, Used , Cloned the Spracklen?

[steffen]

And, Ron, please, final question from my side:
Are the programs used for the Advanced Voice and the Sensory Voice the same?
Thank you

And:
The CC 10 was also copied by (former) Eastern Germany. They made a prototype of 12 pieces (I have this number from the former head of the development team Mr. Erdmann Schleinitz) with your program, look here: http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/index.php/SC_1
And what Mike Watters had written: In Bulgaria they produced a clone og the Chess Challenger Voice called IZOT, 1.7 times slower than the original:
http://chesscomputeruk.com/html/izot_u30m_1042c.html

--> and this is the Brazilian clone of your CC 7:
http://chesscomputeruk.com/html/splice_byte_xd_300.html

[Monsieur Plastique]

Amazing how so much incorrect information is on the net these days
i wonder what quality control process is in place to post and edit the Wiki?
i mean can just anyone post whatever they want there and then its taken as the gospel?

I think one reason why there is misinformation running around regarding "late model" chess computers is the rise of the "black blob" CPU. With no sure means of identifying what is really underneath, it is very different to the old days where there was a clearly identifiable chip there, complete with markings, etc.

Of course that is no excuse to put wrong information up on the net. As an example, even with the original 16K Novag Opal and various improvements in that model range right up to the Star Opal, I can't really say what is inside some of them. I remember opening up one a decade or so ago and it had a standard 6301Y chip in it. The last generation ones are black blob and they play indisputably better chess but still advertised as the same 8 Mhz clock speed - as per the original 16K models. And we know Kittinger had no practical involvement in the company by this time.

At least with a current machine like the MCG, although it too is a "black blob" machine, we all know what hardware is running under the bonnet because the company has told us.

So far as Excalibur is concerned, at least it is finally beyond any dispute as to why the GM / Mirage / H8 Igor stood head and shoulders above anything that came after it, despite what all the chess computer sites on the net say about the hardware (or the software for that matter). The sad fact is that in light of the (well intentioned I suspect) misinformation running around out there, Ron is not going be able to ask the million unanswered questions we all have regarding Fidelity and Excalibur products. But at least he has answered the big two so far as I am concerned.

[mclane]

I also think there is no need for him to answer all questions.
It's long time ago. It's Christmas and we all enjoy our families now.

I want to remind you all on my tournament where Igor and grandmaster participate in a little over locked hardware and they compete with other "more famous" machines.

It has 54 participants in the moment and Igor is rank 25 with 13/31
Above e.g. Spracklens designer 2100 !!! That has 12.5/30
And behind Mephisto Milano !!! That has 13/30.

So Ron and Larry did a very good job indeed.

[Steve B]

Amazing how so much incorrect information is on the net these days
i wonder what quality control process is in place to post and edit the Wiki?
i mean can just anyone post whatever they want there and then its taken as the gospel?

I think one reason why there is misinformation running around regarding "late model" chess computers is the rise of the "black blob" CPU. With no sure means of identifying what is really underneath, it is very different to the old days where there was a clearly identifiable chip there, complete with markings, etc.

Of course that is no excuse to put wrong information up on the net.
.

correct no excuse at all
so what is the process on the wiki do you think?
they dont know for sure what CPU it is and so they make something up by pulling it out of their butts and post it?
what is that i ask you?

thankfully i dont visit the Wiki all that often but i do on rare occasion refer to it
so this is very..very..

Troubling Regards
Steve

[steffen]

Additionally one has to pay a lot of respect to the "old programmers." If you have a look at the new faster PCBs from UK you see how strong the old programs really were. Partly just a lack of speed, compared to later stronger programs.

[alynch4047]

I just created an account to say a big thanks to Ron. When I was a young teenager I was mad about computers (though didn't have one) and chess. I really wanted a CC7 but it cost too much for my parents, so I got a paper round and saved up and bought one

Looking at what Ron achieved, it's quite inspirational really.

In terms of the improvement of the programs over the years, it's quite natural and obvious that all the chess programmers learnt from each other in terms of new techniques. This is not copying but a simple exchange of information, which takes place in all fields and is fundamental to the technical advancement of Man.

A big thanks again!

[Fluppio]

Amazing how so much incorrect information is on the net these days
i wonder what quality control process is in place to post and edit the Wiki?
i mean can just anyone post whatever they want there and then its taken as the gospel?

I think one reason why there is misinformation running around regarding "late model" chess computers is the rise of the "black blob" CPU. With no sure means of identifying what is really underneath, it is very different to the old days where there was a clearly identifiable chip there, complete with markings, etc.

Of course that is no excuse to put wrong information up on the net.
.

correct no excuse at all
so what is the process on the wiki do you think?
they dont know for sure what CPU it is and so they make something up by pulling it out of their butts and post it?
what is that i ask you?

thankfully i dont visit the Wiki all that often but i do on rare occasion refer to it
so this is very..very..

Troubling Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,

you're right, any person who is known to the community can create an account for the wiki (think it's the same with the regular Wikipedia). Of course everybody tries to fill in only facts, but to err is human. Ron's info f.e. to the Alexandra processor was new at all. Manuals aren't correct as well sometimes, so we have to live with mistakes.

The intention on the wiki was that many people should upload articles and photos, to make it a reference for everyone. From time to time I'm working on it too, fill up lacks etc. You can always read who made any changes (see version history/"Versionsgeschichte" in german).

Open source regards
Peter

[Jose]

Amazing how so much incorrect information is on the net these days
i wonder what quality control process is in place to post and edit the Wiki?
i mean can just anyone post whatever they want there and then its taken as the gospel?

I think one reason why there is misinformation running around regarding "late model" chess computers is the rise of the "black blob" CPU. With no sure means of identifying what is really underneath, it is very different to the old days where there was a clearly identifiable chip there, complete with markings, etc.

Of course that is no excuse to put wrong information up on the net.
.

correct no excuse at all
so what is the process on the wiki do you think?
they dont know for sure what CPU it is and so they make something up by pulling it out of their butts and post it?
what is that i ask you?

thankfully i dont visit the Wiki all that often but i do on rare occasion refer to it
so this is very..very..

Troubling Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,

you're right, any person who is known to the community can create an account for the wiki (think it's the same with the regular Wikipedia). Of course everybody tries to fill in only facts, but to err is human. Ron's info f.e. to the Alexandra processor was new at all. Manuals aren't correct as well sometimes, so we have to live with mistakes.

The intention on the wiki was that many people should upload articles and photos, to make it a reference for everyone. From time to time I'm working on it too, fill up lacks etc. You can always read who made any changes (see version history/"Versionsgeschichte" in german).

Open source regards
Peter

Hi Peter.
yes i agree, Peter. Absoluty correct.
Best Jose

[Steve B]

Well..i wonder...when will someone edit the Wiki showing Nelson as the Programmer for the GM,Mirage.Ivan ,Igor etc.etc..?

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... randmaster

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... bur_Mirage

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Ivan

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Igor

Time To Correct The Record Regards
Steve

[paulwise3]

Well..i wonder...when will someone edit the Wiki showing Nelson as the Programmer for the GM,Mirage.Ivan ,Igor etc.etc..?

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... randmaster

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... bur_Mirage

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Ivan

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Igor

Time To Correct The Record Regards
Steve

I am sure it will be corrected in time. Right now not everybody is busy with forums and correctness etc. It's time for Christmas and New Years Eve! I think you are a little harsh on them. If it wasn't for that wiki, I would never have been able to get a reasonably balanced chesscomputer collection in just one year!
So I have the greatest respect for their initiative. And as for all wiki's: it's all volunteers work, and making mistakes is very human...

Peace on earth regards,
(Imagine...)
Paul

[Mike Watters]

Hi All

Well with Christmas over I emailed David Levy yesterday drawing his attention to all Ron's posts. As David was deeply involved in the Hong Kong/Chinese chess computer industry and sourced many of the programs for the early Excaliburs built by CXG he seemed able, if he wished to, to erase the doubts of the remaining doubters. His reply includes
"I am unable to make any useful comments on what Ron has recorded in these postings. The only thing I can contribute is that, so far as I am aware, Ron is truthful and honest, and I have never had any cause to doubt his word."

So personally I will be acknowledging Ron Nelson and Larry Kaufman as the program team responsible for the H8 Excaliburs. In a similar way to the joint credit given to Mark Taylor/David Levy and Craig Barnes/Julio Kaplan in the SciSys section of my website. Obviously Ron programmed many other later Excalibur's and I intend to go through all 60+ and give a list if nobody else does it (just my conclusions for what they are worth).

I am certainly glad Ron came here to put the record straight. It would be a shame if he didn't continue. Everyone's different, some programmer's visit forums and quickly disappear, others enjoy going through the sort of history and stories which fascinate us. When I was researching Intelligent Software Bruce Tanner, brilliant programmer of one of the Enterprise home computer custom chips, got a great reception on the Enterprise forum and spent lots of time interacting with the fans of that machine answering questions.

It didn't start well with the ridiculous claim that Ron had been responsible for everything. It didn't continue that well when Ron seeks to disclaim responsibility for the CC1 reverse notation (his prototype, his program), or the Mirage engineering (he's in charge of engineering and the buck stops there surely) and the Par Ex has a very similar pcb and components to the Excellence so why would you not minimise production costs?................

However what we wanted was information we could trust on who authored the chess engines for Excalibur and, as far as I am concerned, that is what we have got. If I am one of the last to get there sobeit.

All the best
Mike

[spacious_mind]

Well..i wonder...when will someone edit the Wiki showing Nelson as the Programmer for the GM,Mirage.Ivan ,Igor etc.etc..?

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... randmaster

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... bur_Mirage

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Ivan

http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... libur_Igor

Time To Correct The Record Regards
Steve

I am sure it will be corrected in time. Right now not everybody is busy with forums and correctness etc. It's time for Christmas and New Years Eve! I think you are a little harsh on them. If it wasn't for that wiki, I would never have been able to get a reasonably balanced chesscomputer collection in just one year!
So I have the greatest respect for their initiative. And as for all wiki's: it's all volunteers work, and making mistakes is very human...

Peace on earth regards,
(Imagine...)
Paul

You are correct Paul. It takes time and research to now put all the Excalibur pieces together.

Have patience Steve and stop hounding people who I am sure are working on it. Let's focus on getting all the information together now.

What's annoying is that everyone is happy to throw out some BS but very few people are interested in rolling up their sleeves and putting some work into it.

I have started alphabetically working through Excalibur Range it is not revised on my Website pages yet because it needs confirmation on accuracy, but it will be posted hopefully quite soon once it is confirmed as well as it can be confirmed.

Hopefully Ron is still watching if he hasn't already been run off with the craziness that is being posted here. You have to remember that it is also in his interest to archive his work correctly otherwise he would never have posted the List of computers and other Excalibur products in one of his first posts.

ALEXANDRA THE GREAT



The specifications for a SPLB32A 8-bit CMOS microprocessor is shown above. It explains the size needed to incorporate Alexandra's speech but missing is the actual chess program size - ROM and available RAM for the chess program. Also the SPLB32A spec sheet states that it is a 5 MHz processor where previously we had all assumed it was 10 MHz. Therefore some additional research and clarification needs to be done.

ALPHA 2-IN-1



I have notated this computer since it comes from Krypton as David Levy & Mark Taylor. It also precedes Ron Nelson.

CHESS EXPRESS



Same with this computer it precedes Ron Nelson. Plenty of gaps on this one.

CHESS STATION



A spec sheet that I have found quotes KS57 as 6 MHz yet we have always quoted the speed as 5 MHz. So some research needs to be done on it as I can't remember if the Manufacturer quoted the 5 MHz or if someone had opened the computer and looked at its insides? Available RAM is missing for the program.

CHESS WIZARD



Precedes Ron Nelson.

CRUSADER



6508 Spec sheets show a 6508 as 1 MHz. Is this correct? Needs confirming. Also missing is the available RAM for the program. Also since Krypton also sold the identical Crusader I would have to assume that it was agreed between both companies that Crusader should be sold by both companies?

Anyway as you can see from the above there is quite a lot of work involved in going through 60+ computers.

Rather than bickering how about you all start rolling up your sleeves and working together on this?

Best regards

[Steve B]

Have patience Steve and stop hounding people who I am sure are working on it


Rather than bickering how about you all start rolling up your sleeves and working together on this?

Best regards

im not hounding anyone
and i dont need your lecturing..
i asked for those that edit the Wiki to now list Nelson as the programmer
i asked this once

not sure who you think you are but you are last person here who should be lecturing anyone. i am getting a bit tired of statements like this from you whether directed at me or Fern or anyone else here

Steve

[Fernando]

Have patience Steve and stop hounding people who I am sure are working on it


Rather than bickering how about you all start rolling up your sleeves and working together on this?

Best regards

im not hounding anyone
and i dont need your lecturing..
i asked for those that edit the Wiki to now list Nelson as the programmer
i asked this once

not sure who you think you are but you are last person here who should be lecturing anyone. i am getting a bit tired of statements like this from you whether directed at me or Fern or anyone else here

Steve

Perhaps SpaciousMind is sometimes a little bit harsh, BUT he is an incredible strong deliverer, with his statistics and all. I doubt very much even I would be capable of doing all that.
So..

Nobody is perfect regards
Fern

[spacious_mind]

Have patience Steve and stop hounding people who I am sure are working on it


Rather than bickering how about you all start rolling up your sleeves and working together on this?

Best regards

im not hounding anyoone
and i dont need your lecturing
i asked for those that edit the Wiki to now list Nelson as the programmer
i asked this once

not sure who you think you are but i am getting a bit tired of statements like this from you

Steve

Well is the statement not correct? Besides you take it as if you are the only only one covered with my post.

After all is it you that started these Wiki comments or were you fed? As I said people jump in and out and then watch the soap develop on their screen.

You had it explained on how Wiki works by both Peter and Jose and I know you probably didn't need to be explained in the first place, yet you still repeated your demand that it be fixed immediately. I have not contributed in Wiki in a few years but I do know that I can go there and correct things if I choose to as any Wiki member can do as well. You also have some contributions there, therefore I would assume the same applies to you.

But perhaps just like you I know I am reluctant to do this because one of the difficulties with any Wiki is that if someone put the effort into the work then I would prefer to have that someone correct it as well. Rather than just jumping in every few minutes and overwrite someone else's work.

In the meantime what I can work on is correcting my pages as carefully as possible because I do want them to be right at the end of the day.

Instead of watching a soap opera if people are really interested then they could start by researching some of the stuff themselves and posting their findings instead of continuing snippets of abuse of other people hard work.

No one who puts work into something that is their hobby and enjoyment does this with the intent of reporting wrong.

Best regards