CM2000 Vs Superconnie
Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
- Fernando
- Admiral of the Fleet
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Santiago de Chile
CM2000 Vs Superconnie
I wonder if CM2000 running in current comps is at last stronger than superconnie. To this last comp I have beaten several times, though after harsh fight, but CM2000 looks like stronger to me. In middle game see 7-8 ply and SC only saw 6 or so, 7-8 only at the end of the middle game. What is your experience?
Fern
Fern
Festina Lente
Re: CM2000 Vs Superconnie
Never owned CM2000...is that the one on the really old 640kb floppy?Fernando wrote:I wonder if CM2000 running in current comps is at last stronger than superconnie. To this last comp I have beaten several times, though after harsh fight, but CM2000 looks like stronger to me. In middle game see 7-8 ply and SC only saw 6 or so, 7-8 only at the end of the middle game. What is your experience?
Fern
...the one impossible to play against now because nobody has a driver
for those antiques? I imagine it would have worked on the old Commodore
computer, also something I never had. I was raising a family back then
and had other priorities. I did however, have a Super Connie. It was
a sudden quantum leap up in blitz playing strength from the Spracklen
programs. My first CM was, I think, CM4000, on my old 386 pc. By
then the pc programs had left the dedicateds behind in strength.
L
- Fernando
- Admiral of the Fleet
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Santiago de Chile
Re: CM2000 Vs Superconnie
Larry wrote:Never owned CM2000...is that the one on the really old 640kb floppy?Fernando wrote:I wonder if CM2000 running in current comps is at last stronger than superconnie. To this last comp I have beaten several times, though after harsh fight, but CM2000 looks like stronger to me. In middle game see 7-8 ply and SC only saw 6 or so, 7-8 only at the end of the middle game. What is your experience?
Fern
...the one impossible to play against now because nobody has a driver
for those antiques? I imagine it would have worked on the old Commodore
computer, also something I never had. I was raising a family back then
and had other priorities. I did however, have a Super Connie. It was
a sudden quantum leap up in blitz playing strength from the Spracklen
programs. My first CM was, I think, CM4000, on my old 386 pc. By
then the pc programs had left the dedicateds behind in strength.
L
NOT impossible to play. It is available in many abandon ware sites and run in d.fend, the best DOS box in existence.
Festina Lente
-
- Member
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm
- spacious_mind
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4000
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Alabama
- Contact:
Here are some depths for the programs at 30 seconds.
DOSBox D-Fend Max Speed Chessmaster 2000
7 Ply depth on 4.6 GHz 8 Core
Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2000
8 Ply complete calculating 9th ply depth on 4.6 GHz 8 Core
Amiga WINUAE emu is faster.
DOSBox D-Fend Max Speed Chessmaster 2100
DOSBox 756,678 positions seen with depth 6
Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2100
Amiga 6,790,608 positions seen with depth of 8 ply. Amiga is 9 times faster than DOSBox D-Fend at 100% max.
Atari Emu 68060-32 MHz Sargon 3
Atari 68060-32 Mhz completed 6 ply started 1st search on 7th Ply
Amiga Emu 68060 Sargon 3
Amiga 68060 Emulator reached depth 0f 9/11 = much faster than Atari ST emulator.
Best regards
DOSBox D-Fend Max Speed Chessmaster 2000
7 Ply depth on 4.6 GHz 8 Core
Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2000
8 Ply complete calculating 9th ply depth on 4.6 GHz 8 Core
Amiga WINUAE emu is faster.
DOSBox D-Fend Max Speed Chessmaster 2100
DOSBox 756,678 positions seen with depth 6
Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2100
Amiga 6,790,608 positions seen with depth of 8 ply. Amiga is 9 times faster than DOSBox D-Fend at 100% max.
Atari Emu 68060-32 MHz Sargon 3
Atari 68060-32 Mhz completed 6 ply started 1st search on 7th Ply
Amiga Emu 68060 Sargon 3
Amiga 68060 Emulator reached depth 0f 9/11 = much faster than Atari ST emulator.
Best regards
Nick
-
- Member
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm
- spacious_mind
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4000
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Alabama
- Contact:
I quit bothering with Colossus X, it plays bad moves every time I tried it, regardless of PC, Atari or Amiga. Also it wouldn't play at 68060, fastest I could get to work was at 68040 or 68000 128 MHz.Martin Hertz wrote:I cannot test the speed of the Chessmasters but Colossus X works well at 3.3 GHz with around 3 million nodes per second.
[fen]8/8/8/8/8/5N2/5R2/3k3K w - - 0 1 [/fen]
Colossus needs to calculate around 27 million positions to find the mate in 6, what takes only 9 seconds at 3.3 GHz.
Same reason with Sargon IV on PC it plays bad moves, it is not a good program.
This is why neither of these are in the tournament that I am playing.
Best regards
Nick
Nick
- Fernando
- Admiral of the Fleet
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Santiago de Chile
Sargon IV got a sad fame due to a catalog of bugs that made of it the worst program ever, probably WEAKER THAN fidelity 7. It was a shame...spacious_mind wrote:I quit bothering with Colossus X, it plays bad moves every time I tried it, regardless of PC, Atari or Amiga. Also it wouldn't play at 68060, fastest I could get to work was at 68040 or 68000 128 MHz.Martin Hertz wrote:I cannot test the speed of the Chessmasters but Colossus X works well at 3.3 GHz with around 3 million nodes per second.
[fen]8/8/8/8/8/5N2/5R2/3k3K w - - 0 1 [/fen]
Colossus needs to calculate around 27 million positions to find the mate in 6, what takes only 9 seconds at 3.3 GHz.
Same reason with Sargon IV on PC it plays bad moves, it is not a good program.
This is why neither of these are in the tournament that I am playing.
Best regards
Nick
Festina Lente
Reflection Vancouver needs 6 seconds and calculate 2 mil. positions to find it.Martin Hertz wrote:I cannot test the speed of the Chessmasters but Colossus X works well at 3.3 GHz with around 3 million nodes per second.
Colossus needs to calculate around 27 million positions to find the mate in 6, what takes only 9 seconds at 3.3 GHz.
-
- Member
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm
I've used Colossus only for comparing the speed, because it's available on many systems, works on todays speed and there is a node count.spacious_mind wrote:I quit bothering with Colossus X, it plays bad moves every time I tried it, regardless of PC, Atari or Amiga. Also it wouldn't play at 68060, fastest I could get to work was at 68040 or 68000 128 MHz.
If the informations in the net are correct, Colossus reaches on 6502 @ 1 MHz or Z80 @ 3.5 MHz around 170 nodes/sec and on the Amiga 500
or Atari ST something around 400 nodes/sec.
- spacious_mind
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4000
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Alabama
- Contact:
Yes that sounds about right.Martin Hertz wrote: I've used Colossus only for comparing the speed, because it's available on many systems, works on todays speed and there is a node count.
If the informations in the net are correct, Colossus reaches on 6502 @ 1 MHz or Z80 @ 3.5 MHz around 170 nodes/sec and on the Amiga 500
or Atari ST something around 400 nodes/sec.
Nick