My manual is coded 85-661-004Steve B wrote:Interesting
my manual is coded...85-661-000
manual copyright-2002
perhaps the Serial number can provide a clue...
133883
manual copyright-2002
Serial number 133883
Sigh.
Features Removed Regards...
Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman
My manual is coded 85-661-004Steve B wrote:Interesting
my manual is coded...85-661-000
manual copyright-2002
perhaps the Serial number can provide a clue...
133883
HI, Now the big question...what else was changed on the obsidian? I'm sure Novag didn't just take away the 'Next Best' feature. I'm curious what they were tinkering around with. I think Steve is right, the serial numbers might shed some light. My serial number is 216670.fourthirty wrote:My manual is coded 85-661-004Steve B wrote:Interesting
my manual is coded...85-661-000
manual copyright-2002
perhaps the Serial number can provide a clue...
133883
manual copyright-2002
Serial number 133883
Sigh.
Features Removed Regards...
Havent checked this but i wonder what will happen if i follow the suggestion i made in this thread 4 years agofourthirty wrote:
I don't understand how this machine was released with the lack of variety in the opening responses. Love the design and gameplay of the Obsidian, but really hate the opening book play.
Do other Obsidian's respond in a similar manner? Any other thoughts on changes to default settings to "open" up the openings???
Hi Steve,Steve B wrote:Havent checked this but i wonder what will happen if i follow the suggestion i made in this thread 4 years agofourthirty wrote:
I don't understand how this machine was released with the lack of variety in the opening responses. Love the design and gameplay of the Obsidian, but really hate the opening book play.
Do other Obsidian's respond in a similar manner? Any other thoughts on changes to default settings to "open" up the openings???
using the NEXT BEST function during the opening to see if more variety is provided?
Hmmm Regards
Steve
Thanks for posting your results, Greg.fourthirty wrote:I decided to run a quick test this morning on the Obsidian's Black responses to White's opening move. It appears the RANDOM function does affect the opening response, but not necessarily in the way that I would expect. I played 20 opening sequences for each setting.RadioSmall wrote:Greetings Hiarcs Forum Members.I have recently bought a Novag Obsidian chess computer , and I am rather displeased with its lack of variety openings.In response to the Move 1.d4 Obsidian always responds with d5
AFTER POWER ON @ DEFAULT SETTINGS (RANDOM = 0)
1.e4
1...e5 (20/20 100%)
then
2.Nf3
2...Nc6 (20/20 100%)
Also, played a Queen's pawn opening:
1.d4
2...d5 (20/20 100%)
RANDOM = 1
1.e4
1...e5 (20/20 100%)
No change in Obsidian's response.
RANDOM = 2
1.e4
1...c5 (18/20 90%)
1...Nc6 (1/20 5%)
1...c6 (1/20 5%)
Slight variety now, but 1...e5 is never played???
RANDOM = 3
1.e4
1...c5 (19/20 95%)
1...a6 (1/20 5%)
Again 1...e5 is never played???
LEVEL CHANGED TO FUN 1 (Fn1) & RANDOM = 0
1.e4
1...e5 (20/20 100%)
I don't understand how this machine was released with the lack of variety in the opening responses. Love the design and gameplay of the Obsidian, but really hate the opening book play.
Do other Obsidian's respond in a similar manner? Any other thoughts on changes to default settings to "open" up the openings???
I also have little interest in a board that has little or no openings diversity. In the study I mention above, I found that the Novag Jade II (or Zircon II) and Amber (or Emerald Classic Plus) had great diversity and the random feature was particularly effective in enhancing it.Cyberchess wrote: Personally, I would find the lack of opening variety far more disconcerting than the lack of the [Next Best] function. I was quite disappointed back in ’86 after purchasing a highly touted Fidelity Par Excellence and finding that it responded to 1.) e4 with 1.) …. e5 100% of the time unless an opening choice was specified beforehand. My Novag units, on the other hand, all had pretty decent opening variety as well as other desirable features.
Changing the level of randomness in order to have the machine vary its opening responses will result in more varied albeit weaker play when the machine is out of book. I have a hunch that all of the latter generation Novag units had some type of serious flaw. They may have laid off the engineering dept. in order to reduce production costs in a rapidly shrinking market. It’s really a pity.
Fondly reminiscing about the Novags of yore regards….
John
It needs to be borne in mind that even before the time of Obsidians, Star Opals, etc, the actual programmers of the chess engines themselves likely had little to nothing to do with the products or the company producing them. And even in cases where they might have, in an historical context decent opening books were still (and always have been) a specialised discipline separate to the creation of an engine (though a book compiler needs to be aware of the program characteristics so as to avoid the machine "voluntarily" playing lines that weaken it).Cyberchess wrote:They may have laid off the engineering dept. in order to reduce production costs in a rapidly shrinking market. It’s really a pity.
Fondly reminiscing about the Novags of yore regards….
John
True and I like what I feel is an important point that Steve brought up, that each machine have their own little nuances. Realizing that truth I have become less critical and enjoy each different machine for what it is. The computers 'character' is the combination of its strengths and flaws.Monsieur Plastique wrote:...That said, it is good to see some decent experiments into the Obsidian book. The book does not seem to be (quite) as fatally flawed as I had thought
3. Steve offers two solutions here:I remember spending literally one entire week just on the Kings Gambit and Latvian, so as to ensure that no expert in these openings could ever hope to get the better of the machine and that by the time the machine was thinking for itself, it was out of danger so to speak. I also had to run every single position through a multi-processor chess engine to ensure there were no tactical holes in the lines the program would play of it's own volition.
the computer will take back its move and come up with another book move
also set the computer to Book Training Mode
when you get the Out Of Book Signal simply switch to player v player and input some more book lines..you might wind up back in its book
i haven't tried it but its worth a go
My Obsidian is the same as Steve's, ie, no addendum and the NEXT BESTSteve B wrote:
Interesting
my manual has no such addendum and NEXT BEST works perfectly on mine
i guess there were two versions of the Obsidian released?
my manual is coded...85-661-000
manual copyright-2002
perhaps the Serial number can provide a clue...
133883
Steve
nope my serial number is as I wrote itLarry wrote:My Obsidian is the same as Steve's, ie, no addendum and the NEXT BESTSteve B wrote:
Interesting
my manual has no such addendum and NEXT BEST works perfectly on mine
i guess there were two versions of the Obsidian released?
my manual is coded...85-661-000
manual copyright-2002
perhaps the Serial number can provide a clue...
133883
Steve
works fine, both in and out of book.
my manual is coded...85-661-000
my Serial number.....143887. Note this serial number is WAY higher than
Steve's, unless he read his wrong, in which case our Obsidians were only
four digits apart from each other.
L
SirDave wrote:
I also have little interest in a board that has little or no openings diversity.
ExactlyJMark wrote:True and I like what I feel is an important point that Steve brought up, that each machine have their own little nuances. Realizing that truth I have become less critical and enjoy each different machine for what it is. The computers 'character' is the combination of its strengths and flaws.Monsieur Plastique wrote:...That said, it is good to see some decent experiments into the Obsidian book. The book does not seem to be (quite) as fatally flawed as I had thought
I recently suggested this experiment to Katherine (appleshampogal) who now owns a Par Excellence unit. After disabling the opening book upon startup, I found, to my amazement, that the machine would correctly calculate the book moves of the Petrov Defense to a considerable depth.Reinfeld wrote: 4. I remain curious about the effect of opening books on deds, and what that's worth in terms of strength. One experiment I've never tried is the naked engine - test them with books turned off.
5. I'm sort of struck by the unspoken standard that a computer MUST respond with variety straight out of the gate without prompting to be considered diverse. Evidently, some feel the experience is crummy if you have to manually tell it to play a Sicilian or a Benko, which never bothers me. I like doing that - I like probing the thing manually, to see how deep it goes into a line, how far the SirDaves in the world have gone, what their sources are, and play the game from there.
6. All this Obsidian scrutiny - has anyone looked for this sort of thing from the Morsch-GK 2100 group, which provided equally slim opening books? Or the Ex-Par Ex Fidelity variants with their bigger books? I detect little variety from either. Again, you've got to order them to play something different - but they still know what they're doing.
I've always assumed the deds play what they rate as the highest-percentage response to start. It doesn't mean they lack variety. You just have to make them show some leg.
- R.
Yes, I wholeheartedly concur that a chess programmer should not be bogged down with the mundane task of opening book creation. After all, they need to concentrate their efforts on pruning techniques, evaluation weights, dynamic piece assessment and the like.Monsieur Plastique wrote:It needs to be borne in mind that even before the time of Obsidians, Star Opals, etc, the actual programmers of the chess engines themselves likely had little to nothing to do with the products or the company producing them. And even in cases where they might have, in an historical context decent opening books were still (and always have been) a specialised discipline separate to the creation of an engine (though a book compiler needs to be aware of the program characteristics so as to avoid the machine "voluntarily" playing lines that weaken it).Cyberchess wrote:They may have laid off the engineering dept. in order to reduce production costs in a rapidly shrinking market. It’s really a pity.
Fondly reminiscing about the Novags of yore regards….
John