CM2000 Vs Superconnie

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
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

CM2000 Vs Superconnie

Post by Fernando »

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
Festina Lente
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Re: CM2000 Vs Superconnie

Post by Larry »

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
Never owned CM2000...is that the one on the really old 640kb floppy?
...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
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: CM2000 Vs Superconnie

Post by Fernando »

Larry wrote:
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
Never owned CM2000...is that the one on the really old 640kb floppy?
...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
Martin Hertz
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm

Post by Martin Hertz »

I've tested many DOS programs with real DOS at 3.3 GHz. If I remember correctly, the CM2000, CM2100 and
CM3000 are not executable at this speed without complications. So it's not possible to play against them
with todays speed anymore.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Here are some depths for the programs at 30 seconds.

DOSBox D-Fend Max Speed Chessmaster 2000

Image

7 Ply depth on 4.6 GHz 8 Core

Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2000

Image

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

Image

DOSBox 756,678 positions seen with depth 6

Amiga Emu 68060 Chessmaster 2100

Image

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

Image

Atari 68060-32 Mhz completed 6 ply started 1st search on 7th Ply

Amiga Emu 68060 Sargon 3

Image

Amiga 68060 Emulator reached depth 0f 9/11 = much faster than Atari ST emulator.

Best regards
Nick
Martin Hertz
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm

Post by Martin Hertz »

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.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

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.
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.

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
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

spacious_mind wrote:
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.
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.

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
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...
Festina Lente
Josef
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:56 pm

Post by Josef »

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.
Reflection Vancouver needs 6 seconds and calculate 2 mil. positions to find it.
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Post by Larry »

Josef wrote: Colossus needs to calculate around 27 million positions to find the mate in 6, what takes only 9 seconds at 3.3 GHz.
[/quote]
For comparison, the risc2500 2mb finds it in a respectable 38 seconds.
Im sure it did'nt need to examine 27 million positions!
L
Martin Hertz
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:08 pm

Post by Martin Hertz »

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.
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.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

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.
Yes that sounds about right.
Nick
Post Reply