Novag Constellation rated elo 2000?

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Novag Constellation rated elo 2000?

Post by Larry »

https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images ... 00x300.jpg

This is the sort of outright false advertising that brought the dedicated
chess computer industry into disrepute back in the 80's.
You might like to look at the back of the brochure:
https://a2-images.myspacecdn.com/images ... 00x300.jpg

I found this brochure just now while cleaning out the bottom drawer
of my filing cabinet. Never know what treasures await the old dedicated
chess comp collector.
L
User avatar
ricard60
Senior Member
Posts: 1285
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Puerto Ordaz

Post by ricard60 »

Hi Larry,

Novag Constellation at 2 Mhz it is rated with 1697 and the Constellation at 3.6 Mhz is rated at 1771 and Super Constellation 1799. This is from the schachcomputer active list. The highest was the Constellation expert that is 1909 that is close to 2000 elo because dedicated chess machine rating are under rated about 70 points from human elo.

Constellation rating regards
Ricardo
User avatar
Cyberchess
Full Member
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:10 pm

Post by Cyberchess »

Greetings!

The 3.6MHZ 6502 Novag Super Constellation was a milestone machine in that it was the first dedicated unit to receive a CRA certified Expert rating of U.S.C.F. 2018, and the first dedicated unit to defeat a U.S.C.F. Master (Jerry Simon 2207).

http://adamsccpages.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... ation.html

I tried this unit out for about 10 days back in ’84 and I was truly impressed by it, though returned the unit and wound up later purchasing the Novag Forte B Version instead. I’m fairly certain it was the same machine sporting a faux wood motif and a slightly higher clocked (5MHZ) CPU.

Novags of yore regards,
John
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Well the plain old 2.0 Mhz Constellation was a real eye-opener for me back in the early 1980s. Although there were already programs around that were stronger than me at the time (Sensory 9), the Constellation was a significant step ahead of all of them and could beat me back then 100% of the time. Although I am a significantly stronger player these days, a 2.0 MHz Constellation would still give me a tough time and it would still have some wins and draws.

There was a time here in Australia where the 2.0 MHz Constellation was the strongest chess computer available to purchase. Soon after the Super Constellation followed. I still clearly remember a certain very young bloke at the time (who would be well-remembered by us Aussies over a certain age). He proudly took a 2.0 Mhz Constellation brochure to a Sydney tournament, no doubt on the brink of purchasing one. I wonder what he thought of the machine after he became an IM a handful of years later...

The bubble burst in terms of my awe for the Constellation series when I saw how poorly the machines faired against Australian human opponents even with relatively modest ratings. Part of that had to do with the Australian rating system at the time (which was at least around 300 points out of whack with the US system, meaning an Australian player in the high 1800s would have been a USCF master), but it also had a lot to do with these machines being quite fallible.

Over the last couple of days I've enjoyed reading Tim Harding's Chess Computer books from the early 80s. Makes you realise not only how far we have come, but how difficult it was to solve those early problems that we take for granted as being non-issues today (and even for the last quarter of a century!).

One thing that does annoy the heck out of me these days though. Many people completely dismiss these early machines and consider them to be unworthy, antiquated jokes. But the fact remains that even a 2.0 Mhz Constellation would easily defeat the vast majority of serious hobby level and low to middle club level chess players in the World even today. I bet half the people who play endless 3100 ELO engine versus 3100 ELO engine matches and make critical commentary on them would lose a match to a 2.0 Mhz Constellation as well. After all, if everyone was as brilliant as they seem to be as Kibitzers and commentators after the fact, then everyone would be world champion. There is still a lot of life left in terms of that original Constellation being a competitive machine against most human players. The fact that it could accomplish what it did on such ridiculously modest hardware is all the more amazing, given you can buy toy gaming consoles these days with quad core processors that are thousands of times faster.

There is even a new product on the market called "Pure Chess". It will run on iPads, iPhones, the Nintendo 3DS and PS3, all of which have astronomical computing power compared to that original Constellation. Having tried the program myself, may I be forced to eat pig's bladders then my life be unceremoniously stumped out in a pot of boiling oil if the 2.0 MHz Constellation could not beat that program (set to it's highest "GM" level) 100 to nil.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

Monsieur Plastique wrote:Well the plain old 2.0 Mhz Constellation was a real eye-opener for me back in the early 1980s. Although there were already programs around that were stronger than me at the time (Sensory 9), the Constellation was a significant step ahead of all of them and could beat me back then 100% of the time. Although I am a significantly stronger player these days, a 2.0 MHz Constellation would still give me a tough time and it would still have some wins and draws.

There was a time here in Australia where the 2.0 MHz Constellation was the strongest chess computer available to purchase. Soon after the Super Constellation followed. I still clearly remember a certain very young bloke at the time (who would be well-remembered by us Aussies over a certain age). He proudly took a 2.0 Mhz Constellation brochure to a Sydney tournament, no doubt on the brink of purchasing one. I wonder what he thought of the machine after he became an IM a handful of years later...

The bubble burst in terms of my awe for the Constellation series when I saw how poorly the machines faired against Australian human opponents even with relatively modest ratings.

One thing that does annoy the heck out of me these days though. Many people completely dismiss these early machines and consider them to be unworthy, antiquated jokes. But the fact remains that even a 2.0 Mhz Constellation would easily defeat the vast majority of serious hobby level and low to middle club level chess players in the World even today.
Hi Jon
the 2.0 was a favorite of mine as well
when the 3.6 came out it was all the rave
the Super Connie was released with just as much Pomp and Circumstance
I even sponsored a match against GM Larry Kaufman where he took on the 3.6Mhz and gave Rook Odds
to my chagrin he won!
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... stellation

Connie Mania Regards
Steve
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Post by Larry »

Yes Jon, that was a good read of yours. It took me back to a day in Sydney
when I was in Australia Square when Peter Parr had his shop there. It
was a games shop then, ie, it included games other than chess. Maybe
he should have kept it that way?
Anyway, he had a Connie there on display. Pity me, I'd only recently
bought a Fidelity '9'. I clearly remember him saying the Connie outplayed
the Fidelity '9' on every level. He was right, it did. I know because I bought
one and played the two against each other. The later Connie 3.6 was only
brought into the country in small numbers, maybe just on special order.
You remember Peter was more or less the only chess comp importer in
the country that could speak with authority on them. Grace Bros had a
Novag Savant under the glass counter, but of course the dolly girl
shop assistant could'nt be expected to know anything about it.
They were heady days for us guys, but they couldn't last.
L
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Steve B wrote:I even sponsored a match against GM Larry Kaufman where he took on the 3.6Mhz and gave Rook Odds
to my chagrin he won!
Very interesting game there Steve. I was unaware of it until now. I suspect he would have gone down to a Super Constellation in the same circumstances though. Possibly if it had been a real-time sit down game, the result might have been different as well, since of course then the Constellation would not only have benefitted from pondering, but also the time usage algorithms which would have allowed more time in critical positions. Still, a very interesting game and it was great to read the overviews of Larry's thought process straight from the man himself.

His comments about ratings were also very interesting. From all of his comments in that particular regard, it seems to be consistent with my own belief that the current SSDF ratings are too conservative for all the dedicated chess computers. I did not know that the list had shifted downwards more than once though. Luckily we all have access to the old CCR publications so we can see what the ratings were when these machines played people regularly.

I decided to put the critical position into my Star Opal which of course was the last 16K program released by Novag, although the program itself takes up significantly less ROM than the Constellation 16K program due to having a much larger openings book. Like the Super Conny, Star Opal too rejects the losing Qxg6 after thinking about it for some seconds, then subsequently favours the correct hxg6. Just as I was about to pat the little Star Opal on the back, it changed it's mind once again and ended up playing the losing Qxg6 as did the Constellation :?
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Larry wrote:Yes Jon, that was a good read of yours. It took me back to a day in Sydney
when I was in Australia Square when Peter Parr had his shop there.
I actually never went to his shop when it was based there. I wish I had, but as a student I did not have money to spend anyway. I seem to remember that at the same time there was also a store in Castlereagh St (Chess World?) that also sold chess computers (but only Scisys from memory). But Peter must have moved to that old building (level 6?) just down from Central Station very soon after Australia Square, since my very first transaction with him was the purchase of a Scisys Companion II (from the latter location) in December 1983.

The memories of that level 6 store come flooding back though. There was an entire wall of a warehouse sized shop space just filled with chess computers and nothing else. Those Sensory 9 machines still continued to sell despite him also selling the Constellation machines. What will grate on me for the rest of life however, was seeing those walls full of brand spanking new Scisys Mark V / VI machines, yet having no money to buy them.

Back in the days of the Constellation / Super Constellation and for a few years after that, you could rely on Peter to be an authority on the relative merits and strengths of the various machines (as well as meaningful ELOs). I think as time went on however, there were so many new models coming out and so much fast-paced innovation, that it became very difficult to keep up technically with the latest and greatest. I think by the time Novag were bringing out their first RISC based machines, a lot of the golden era excitement was over (except for people like us).

Even in my last days as a customer of Chess Discount Sales, the ratings of the Novag machines were advertised verbatim as per the boxes. So pretty much everything walked out the door about 400 points over-rated from the mid 90s onward!
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

Monsieur Plastique wrote:
I decided to put the critical position into my Star Opal which of course was the last 16K program released by Novag, although the program itself takes up significantly less ROM than the Constellation 16K program due to having a much larger openings book. Like the Super Conny, Star Opal too rejects the losing Qxg6 after thinking about it for some seconds, then subsequently favours the correct hxg6. Just as I was about to pat the little Star Opal on the back, it changed it's mind once again and ended up playing the losing Qxg6 as did the Constellation :?
Yes Jon
34..Qxg6 was the losing blunder
i even opined that no 1600+ player in his right mind would put his Q into a pin like that

for those interested in the complete PGN...


[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBNR w Kkq - 0 1[/fen]
REMOVE WHITE QR
[Event "CCC Forum Challenge "]
[Date "7.03-8.23.2010"]
[White "GM Kaufman"]
[Black "Novag Constellation 3.6"]
[Time Control "3 Min Per Move "]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 b6 13.h3 Bb7 14.Rc1 O-O 15.Rd1 Rfd8 16.Bb2 Qg6 17.Bd3 Qh6 18.Bc1 Qh5 19.Re1 d5 20.Kh2 d4 21.Qa3 Bc8 22.Re4 Bf5 23.g4 Bxg4 24.Rxg4 Nxe5 25.Nxe5 Qxe5+ 26.Bf4 Qc5 27.Qb3 g6 28.Bc4 Nd5 29.Bg5 Rd7 30.h4 Re8 31.h5 Qd6+ 32.Kg2 Qc6 33.Kh2 Re5 34.hxg6 Qxg6 35.Qg3 Rf5 36.Bh4 Rxf2+ 37.Kg1 Rf5 38.Bd3 Nf4 39.Rxg6+ hxg6 40.Qe1 Rfd5 41.Bf6 Ne6 42.Bc4 R5d6 43.Be5 Ng5 44.Qg3 Rc6 45.Qg2 Re7 46.Qxc6 Rxe5 47.Qxg6+ Kf8 48.Qf6 Rc5 49.Qd8+ Kg7 50.Qxd4+ f6 51.Qd7+ Kg6 52.Bd3+ f5 53.Kf2 Kf6 54.Qd8+ Kg6 55.Qe7 1-0


Rooked Regards
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cyberchess
Full Member
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:10 pm

Post by Cyberchess »

Kudos to GM Larry Kaufman!

Mr. Kaufman is also an accomplished shogi handicapper and is distinguished as the strongest western player (5 Dan).

http://shogi.me/blog/2011/02/larry-kauf ... roduction/

:wink: Give till it hurts…….. your opponent.

Two golds and a lance regards,
John
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

This thread really has me inspired and has filled me with some challenging, invigorating and innovative ideas. Having never come close to beating HIARCS13, I thought to myself: "how might I go with all white pieces and pawns versus lone black king and rook pawn? Would this material imbalance somehow compensate for the massive ELO difference?".

Well, amazingly it did :shock: I am extremely proud of this game. I think anyone in the same boat would be. Surely. To beat a mega-stupendously Super Duper GM at odds is still quite the accomplishment. What do you think?


[fen]3k4/7p/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1[/fen]

1. e4 Kd7
2. Qh5 h6
3. Bb5+ Kd6
4. Qxh6+ Ke7
5. Qc5+ Kb7
6. e5 Kd8
7. Qd6+ Kc8
8. Ba6#
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

Very Impressive Win Jon

lets see how you do with this position...

[fen]4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1[/fen]

That should even things up Regards
Steve
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Come on. That is clearly unrealistic. It will probably end up queening most of them and will then have a massive material advantage.

Fairs fair Regards
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
Post Reply