My first post and a question

[Mentat]

Hi all,

glad to be part of this forum. I've gone over a lot of stuff posted here and I think this might be my niche. I am 63 and my sight is getting really bad, so I try to stay away from the computer glare whenever I can. This means that I've started playing against my old dedicateds lately. (Alas, only a couple are still left after the hurried sale of the nice machines back in the 90's and the appearance of the new really strong PC software). And, finally, as there is someone on this forum I've known for quite a while I'd like to say hi:) to my good friend, Fernando, who's been there for me when I needed him.

Anyway, I've managed to pick up an Excalibur machine (for peanuts that I haven't been able to find out about much. It's a King Arthur, which is definitely quite a lot weaker than I, but can still be fun in games where it takes about 30 seconds to reply, with me playing almost instantly (and having fun). The Internet does not offer any relevant data
on the King Arthur. No programmer is mentioned, no ROM, no RAM, only the number of opening moves. I can only take an educated guess that the ROM should be about 8-12 kb, and also make a wild guess about the author (Craig Barnes??), and that's it. The Active rating list says that it is about 1330, which seems about right. Still, its playing style is not stupid, but its tactics are very much wanting. In that particular respect it reminds me of some of Julio Kaplan's smaller programs such as the Cavalier or the Turbo 16k.

Finally, I am glad to be here in this nice quiet nook of the Internet, I needed a forum where people can discuss computer chess at human level
, not the outrageous nps and plies on a quad or octa PC. I imagine that it's only the techno geeks and correspondence chess buffs who need the super-duper machines and the
latest PC software.

All the best,

Djordje

[Larry]

Hi all,

glad to be part of this forum. I've gone over a lot of stuff posted here and I think this might be my niche. I am 63 and my sight is getting really bad, so I try to stay away from the computer glare whenever I can. This means that I've started playing against my old dedicateds lately. (Alas, only a couple are still left after the hurried sale of the nice machines back in the 90's and the appearance of the new really strong PC software). And, finally, as there is someone on this forum I've known for quite a while I'd like to say hi:) to my good friend, Fernando, who's been there for me when I needed him.

Anyway, I've managed to pick up an Excalibur machine (for peanuts that I haven't been able to find out about much. It's a King Arthur, which is definitely quite a lot weaker than I, but can still be fun in games where it takes about 30 seconds to reply, with me playing almost instantly (and having fun). The Internet does not offer any relevant data
on the King Arthur. No programmer is mentioned, no ROM, no RAM, only the number of opening moves. I can only take an educated guess that the ROM should be about 8-12 kb, and also make a wild guess about the author (Craig Barnes??), and that's it. The Active rating list says that it is about 1330, which seems about right. Still, its playing style is not stupid, but its tactics are very much wanting. In that particular respect it reminds me of some of Julio Kaplan's smaller programs such as the Cavalier or the Turbo 16k.

Finally, I am glad to be here in this nice quiet nook of the Internet, I needed a forum where people can discuss computer chess at human level
, not the outrageous nps and plies on a quad or octa PC. I imagine that it's only the techno geeks and correspondence chess buffs who need the super-duper machines and the
latest PC software.

All the best,

Djordje

Hi Djordje, welcome to the forum. Re: the Excalibur King Arthur, I
personally don't have much time for those excaliburs. Just follow ebay
for a little while and you will find a chess computer that will challenge
you.
Out of curiosity, can you tell us the names of some of the machines
you sold in the '90's? I remember when the personal computers were
getting strong and I bought Genius2 on a 1.44mb floppy disc, I
advertised my Novag Expert. It was all complete and working, and I
was going to accept $250 for it. But there were no offers. This was in
the days before the internet. At the time I thought dedicated's were
sort of 'horse 'n' buggy', software was the way to go. Changed my mind
since, of course. If you want a classy chess computer, hurry, the prices
of some models are getting out of control. Get a load of the price this
one achieved this morning:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261640457669 ... 1438.l2649
regards...Larry

[Mentat]

Hi all,

Hi Djordje, welcome to the forum. Re: the Excalibur King Arthur, I
personally don't have much time for those excaliburs. Just follow ebay
for a little while and you will find a chess computer that will challenge
you.
Out of curiosity, can you tell us the names of some of the machines
you sold in the '90's? I remember when the personal computers were
getting strong and I bought Genius2 on a 1.44mb floppy disc, I
advertised my Novag Expert. It was all complete and working, and I
was going to accept $250 for it. But there were no offers. This was in
the days before the internet. At the time I thought dedicated's were
sort of 'horse 'n' buggy', software was the way to go. Changed my mind
since, of course. If you want a classy chess computer, hurry, the prices
of some models are getting out of control. Get a load of the price this
one achieved this morning:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261640457669 ... 1438.l2649
regards...Larry

Hi Larry. Thanks for your reply. To satisfy your curiosity, I'll try to remember some of those machines I had back in the 80's and the 90's that are no more: the first one, still lying somewhere unused any more is the Fidelity Challenger 7. I think I got it in 1980 at about the time my fascination with computer chess started. Then came a Fidelity Excellence (at 3 mhz, which I managed to tune to a whopping 3.7 mhz , and a Par Excellence, a Turbo King 432, Mach III (12 mhz, non-tuned), a Designer 2100 that looked cool, a Saitek Prisma, and two Novags that I cherished so much but was a fool to dispose of. My heart still bleeds for those two: Novag Super Forte C and a big wooden board with the very same programme that remained with me till the late 90's when I sold it for about 1000 DM (about 500 Euros nowadays). What a fool I was then, without ever having second thoughts about the sacrilege I was doing. But my eyes were good then, and the PC programs so strong. Just like you, I remember very vividly my Genius 2 that seemed out of this world! The plastic and wooden boxes seemed to fade away and soon were out of my heart and sight. There were more, of course, but I was never a collector. I mostly played against them and even jotted down the scores.

Still, apart from your utter disdain for the Excaliburs (understandable, of course), I'd like to get some sort of reliable information about the author and the specs of the little placticky thing that gives me fun here and there. What I have in mind is that obscure product that goes by the name of King Arthur

At the moment I do have two respectable opponents that I do have nice skirmishes with ( I am stronger but they offer me enough of a tussle and I enjoy them): a Saitek Centurion and a Mephisto/Saitek Chess Explorer ( a GK 2000 clone). Of course I prefer Morsch over others, even Kittinger, and, perhaps, depending on the machine, Schroeder.

Thanks again. And I promise to keep an eye on the Ebay offers. At the moment I feel that I'd like an extended match against the Par Excellence to check whether I've started getting senile . At the time I was able to beat it about 75% of the time at game in 30 min.

Rgds.

Djordje

[Fernando]

Hi Dgeorge!
A pleasure "to see" you here. From time to time I have news from our daughter, but not much lately. I suppose she is fine and well.
King Arthur is stronger than 1330. Probably you are so much stronger that It looks like that for you, but for me, a lot weaker player than you, Arthur seems to me to play around 1700. To win it I must concentrate and play seriously. I do not have the feeling is such a weak engine in tactics, but certainly positionally weak.
Hope you country is doing well by now or at least you enjoy that first of all goods, PEACE.
a hug
Fern

[Mentat]

Hi Dgeorge!
A pleasure "to see" you here. From time to time I have news from our daughter, but not much lately. I suppose she is fine and well.
King Arthur is stronger than 1330. Probably you are so much stronger that It looks like that for you, but for me, a lot weaker player than you, Arthur seems to me to play around 1700. To win it I must concentrate and play seriously. I do not have the feeling is such a weak engine in tactics, but certainly positionally weak.
Hope you country is doing well by now or at least you enjoy that first of all goods, PEACE.
a hug
Fern

Hola Fern

Great that you mention Alex! She works a lot and travels so much that I hardly see her. The other day we talked about you, Santiago, the girls and tried to remember the details. By the way, I see her very rarely and mostly on Skype Hugs and kisses for the family and the other daughters!

About the King Artuher: I quoted its elo (1330) from a Wiki Elo rating list, it was not my estimate. Just like you, I believe that the machine is stronger, close to 1650, or may be even 1700. It plays good positional chess but is weak in king safety and sometimes tactically. However if I play a bad move it will exploit it and beat me, without mercy. That's why I am trying to find out who programmed it (may be Ron Nelson?) and about the program but nobody in the world (even in this place full of encyclopedic knowledge about computer chess and dedicateds) seems to have a clue

Even though I try to keep my eyes off the computer screen, I still write a lot (have to) so my eyes get really bad and the shifting prescriptions (far-sightedness, short-sightedness) take their toll. That's why I went back to my original hobby; playing against a real board, against dedicated machines that appear to have a soul of a sort and are nto so uniform and faceless as the PC programs.

Thank God, things over here seem to be peaceful nowaydays. And I hope they will stay that way, God permitting.

Great to hear from you, again!

Abrazos mi amigo,

Jorge

[Mentat]

Hi Dgeorge!
A pleasure "to see" you here. From time to time I have news from our daughter, but not much lately. I suppose she is fine and well.
King Arthur is stronger than 1330. Probably you are so much stronger that It looks like that for you, but for me, a lot weaker player than you, Arthur seems to me to play around 1700. To win it I must concentrate and play seriously. I do not have the feeling is such a weak engine in tactics, but certainly positionally weak.
Hope you country is d
oing well by now or at least you enjoy that first of all goods, PEACE.
a hug
Fern

Fern,

this is the place where I found that they have the King Arthur at 1333: http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... o-Liste_En
But it was only machine vs machine, while we talk about humans vs machines, of course.

Jorge

[pr1uk]

http://kantack.com/chess/kingarthur.htm

[Mentat]

http://kantack.com/chess/kingarthur.htm

Thanks a lot for the Kantack link I'd already read that review. Fair and impartial. And yes, I believe that he even gave a fair estimate of the playing strength for K.A (1550-ish) against humans.

Cheers,

Djordje