Chess Programming Authorship

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.
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

1) Peter Jennings - I don't know enough to vote, but he doesn't seem like a villain.

2) Ron Nelson - surely a hero.

3) Samole - a hero, if you accept the idea that someone had to take the risks and find the money.

4) David Levy - a hero without question in terms of his tireless promotion of computer chess, his public challenges to take on all comers, etc. Plus he was an FOBF (Friend of Bobby Fischer).

5) Doesn't David Lindsay warrant some recognition here?

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Post by ChessChallenger »

spacious_mind wrote:I would say:

1) Peter Jennings - Hero, technically speaking the first to bring chess to a Microcomputer on KIM-1. He hasn't done anything since his Microchess program but has to be classified a class one Hero.

2) Ron Nelson - Hero for early Fidelity and for leading teams to beautiful computer designs and features from and CC1 to even through Excalibur. Negative for me, Excalibur instrumental in forcing others out of business through selling mass market cheap C*R*A*P. with Nelson's ample assistance, therefore leaning towards both Hero and Villain.

3) Samole - Racketeer - hero early on because of Fidelity, but when the going got tough somehow managed to hoodwink the Germans to buy his dead company and its millions of losses which ultimately caused Mephisto to go down as well. - Overall Rating Villain. Samole Junior = Also Villain because today dedicated chess computers might have been better off without the existence of Excalibur.

4) David Levy - Probably beats out Samole as Master Villain, instrumental in convincing other Manufacturers that selling cheap C*R*A*P was the way to go. I guess he always needed the limelight which he sought in the 60's without ever really writing a program himself if I read correctly that Mark Taylor was the chess programmer behind David Levy.

So to summarize: Birth of Dedicated/Death of Dedicated

Peter Jennings = Pioneer/No influence in the Death
Ron Nelson = Pioneer/Assisted in the Death (should have gone down with Fidelity)
Samole's = Pioneer/Assisted in the Death (should have gone down with Fidelity)
Levy = Not sure of his real achievements in the dedicated field/should have kept his fingers away from dedicateds.

I wonder what would have happened, if Fidelity died its natural death and CXG?Krypton etc never existed and Excalibur was never founded?

Just look at Mike's Timeline and look at the beautiful things created around 1988 - 1992 from the other Manufacturers and then comes the death with the birth of Excalibur & Levy's China invasion.

This all sounds so very harsh, but am I really that far of base?

Regards

Nick
Wow this is an eye opener.
Ron Nelson
Inventor Chess Challenger
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Post by ChessChallenger »

Mike Watters wrote:Nick

My take on your question Hero, Villain or Both.

(1) Peter Jennings - Though I've read his history page I don't know enough about him to vote for Hero. I have tried to buy Microchess and its manual and Kim-1 on Ebay a couple of times and my pathetic bids have been trumped. The chess computers which contain his program(s) are quite entertaining and endearingly retro.

(2) Ron Nelson - Hero. Despite the other thread the only thing that really counts for me is that he was the pioneer who paved the way, and quickly developed useful chess computers. To work for Sid Samole those years must have also required some heroic qualities.

(3) Sid Samole - Hero and Villain.
Hero - Had the vision. Took the risks. Made chess computers a desirable object at a reasonable price worldwide. As responsible as anyone for the development and popularity of chess computers in the 80s.
Villain - Dubious selling methods (Pity The Poor Chess Computer Buyer). At the forefront of ridiculous Elo claims and poor reliability which harmed the industry over time. Cheated Mephisto contributing to its demise.

(4) David Levy - Hero
In Europe as responsible as anyone for the development and popularity of computer chess through his bet which challenged and energised chess programmers, through many books and articles, organising and promoting tournaments, and even his appearances on German TV playing a chess robot. His software company helped produce some innovative and influential machines Mark III, Mark V, Milton Bradley robot and furthered the careers of a number of programmers and software engineers.

On balance I think his activities as an entrepreneur and program broker helped sustain the industry for longer than it would have otherwise existed after the market for middle and high end machines shrunk through the late 80s - early 90s. Unfortunately this took the form of a plethora of low budget regurgitated formats and programs. When the opportunity was there for something a little better eg Tiger Grenadier he helped the industry provide it, but the market was just not there.

Believe me Nick I have tried to find the Levy negatives. Not promoting the names of the programmers would be one, no doubt protecting his own investment. I can't agree with your other negatives as being accurate.

All the best
Mike
Thank you Mike.
I don't need to spend anymore time on Nick's questions.
Ron Nelson
Inventor Chess Challenger
User avatar
mclane
Senior Member
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:04 am
Location: Luenen, germany, US of europe
Contact:

Post by mclane »

Fernando wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Steve B wrote:
Founding Fathers Regards
Steve
P.S. you spelled Samoles name wrong
hopefully you were not thinking "Shame" when you wrote it
:P
LOL, yes I am not at my best at 5.30 in the morning..

Thanks let's see what other come up. I am interested in seeing the views from birth of chess computers to death of chess computers. Who was influential.

Regards
I thank them all for his work.
I do not care if a doses of commercial deceiving was always present; for me the simple thing is that these they gave me then and give me now a great amount of the few pleasures the life can give.
So, if not heroes, at least people I appreciate.

Fern
One can say many evil things about levy. But his chess champion Mark v
Was ahead of its time.

About Jennings I have the feeling that his micro chess is not really computing.
It spits out moves without big thinking process.
I would say we have the permanent brain age and the pre permanent brain age.

Often computers without pb have no chance against those having permanent brain.


Ron Nelson is a pioneer in his field.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

ChessChallenger wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:I would say:

1) Peter Jennings - Hero, technically speaking the first to bring chess to a Microcomputer on KIM-1. He hasn't done anything since his Microchess program but has to be classified a class one Hero.

2) Ron Nelson - Hero for early Fidelity and for leading teams to beautiful computer designs and features from and CC1 to even through Excalibur. Negative for me, Excalibur instrumental in forcing others out of business through selling mass market cheap C*R*A*P. with Nelson's ample assistance, therefore leaning towards both Hero and Villain.

3) Samole - Racketeer - hero early on because of Fidelity, but when the going got tough somehow managed to hoodwink the Germans to buy his dead company and its millions of losses which ultimately caused Mephisto to go down as well. - Overall Rating Villain. Samole Junior = Also Villain because today dedicated chess computers might have been better off without the existence of Excalibur.

4) David Levy - Probably beats out Samole as Master Villain, instrumental in convincing other Manufacturers that selling cheap C*R*A*P was the way to go. I guess he always needed the limelight which he sought in the 60's without ever really writing a program himself if I read correctly that Mark Taylor was the chess programmer behind David Levy.

So to summarize: Birth of Dedicated/Death of Dedicated

Peter Jennings = Pioneer/No influence in the Death
Ron Nelson = Pioneer/Assisted in the Death (should have gone down with Fidelity)
Samole's = Pioneer/Assisted in the Death (should have gone down with Fidelity)
Levy = Not sure of his real achievements in the dedicated field/should have kept his fingers away from dedicateds.

I wonder what would have happened, if Fidelity died its natural death and CXG?Krypton etc never existed and Excalibur was never founded?

Just look at Mike's Timeline and look at the beautiful things created around 1988 - 1992 from the other Manufacturers and then comes the death with the birth of Excalibur & Levy's China invasion.

This all sounds so very harsh, but am I really that far of base?

Regards

Nick
Wow this is an eye opener.
Ron Nelson
Inventor Chess Challenger
Sorry for the very harsh use of words, at that time I had just bought my 3rd, 4th, 5th Model 375 and ditto Model 375-1, and LCD Talking Chess, just so that I could have one that has a working display. After ensuring that I have one that works for my collection even today I am not playing with them again because I know if I do that the LCD's will fail again so they sit there unused in their boxes.

I am still looking even today for a workable LCD Kingmaster as well a workable New York Times not to mention a Mirage with its failed robotics, a Phantom Force whose robotics work only if the chess pieces are absolutely aligned in the center.

It is the quality of the above products which by your account sold in the millions that had resulted in my post. For clarification, I was not questioning the quality of the chess program itself. The finished product left a lot to be desired on the above.

Best regards

ps.... as for Levy by last account there was pretty much 1 very weak chess program which was sold by CXG, Krypton, Systema, Excalibur (early days), Millennium and is still being sold today by companies like Powerbrain & Ryo. = 1 very weak chess program repeated over and over again at least 50+ times in various different looking designs. The word I used is appropriate in this case as the person who ended up buying a second or third from a store would have ended up being pretty disillusioned after playing them and finding this out.
Nick
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Also you are not alone in this. Novag ended up going under as well. This same repeat the one program over and over again in their last few years and Saitek's repeat the same program over and over again in their last few years did not help them much either.

Once a company stops looking for something new, it dies.

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

Post by spacious_mind »

spacious_mind wrote:Also you are not alone in this. Novag ended up going under as well. This same repeat the one program over and over again in their last few years and Saitek's repeat the same program over and over again in their last few years did not help them much either.

Once a company stops looking for something new, it dies.

Best regards
ps... Novag's last Robot was also a failure from the start. Hardly any of them work. It probably helped to put them under as well.
Nick
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 »

Well no point in singling out Exaclibur products Nick
yes there are some models with high defect rates..but there are also many models working perfectly after many years

My GM is 20 years old works like a charm
King Arthur ,King Arthur Deluxe,Ivan Igor..etc etc..all work fine

not to mention that every Manufacturer had some bad models

you mentioned some Novags..
we also see the wooden Conchess boards all breaking down by now
Scisys Mark V..display screens falling apart
Fidelity EAG-EAS boards with reed switches that go bad every other tuesday
and Travel Master-(very high defect rates)
Saitek Corona's and Stratos's with fading display screens
etc..etc...

the only brand that seems to be holding up really well even after 20-30 years are the Mephistos
all of my boards and almost all modules are working fine
maybe im just lucky?

Bad Apple In Every Bushel Regards
Steve
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Steve B wrote:Well no point in singling out Exaclibur products Nick
yes there are some models with high defect rates..but there are also many models working perfectly after many years

My GM is 20 years old works like a charm
King Arthur ,King Arthur Deluxe,Ivan Igor..etc etc..all work fine

not to mention that every Manufacturer had some bad models

you mentioned some Novags..
we also see the wooden Conchess boards all breaking done by now
Scisys Mark V..display screens falling apart
Fidelity EAG-EAS boards with reed switches that go bad every other tuesday
and Travel Master-(very high defect rates)
Saitek Corona's and Stratos's with fading display screens
etc..etc...

the only brand that seems to be holding up really well even after 20-30 years are the Mephistos
all of my boards and almost all modules are working fine
maybe im just lucky?

Bad Apple In Every Bushel Regards
Steve
I agree Steve, I could quote examples everywhere.

The discussion was a what if scenario. At some point all the companies thought that the way for success was to target the mass market outlets like Toys R Us etc and that in my opinion in the end resulted in their demise. The investment for new programs stopped happening. It was cost efficient to rehouse the same programs over and over again. And, the production quality suffered more in later computers than early computers. All my early computers are still work including CC1 - -- with the exception of travel Master as you mentioned and the famous Novag Savant :)

Hence the villain comments in the what if scenario and the other comment which any chess player would relate to as these computer are only bought for one reason which is to play chess against them.

I just wonder what would have happened if say for example Excalibur would have been the only company to survive?

Would they have began in investing on new programmers? And I don't mean that as a negative on Ron Nelson at all. I mean it on the basis that I think it is important to provide sufficient variety in the chess program itself to have buyers come back for more.

In the past from all manufacturers, this invariably meant you go back and buy the same program or programmer over and over again hence I am sure there was sufficient buyer disappointment, with the exception of us hard core dedicated collectors.

Would someone in this unique situation of being alone and exclusive have gone and found some new blood, ie. asked Mark Uniacke, Stefan Meyer Kahlen, Vasik Rajlich, Larry Kaufmann & Mark Leffler, Tord Romstad, Amir Ban etc etc etc to write one for say an ARM processor. Or would we just have continued with one or two programmers only resulting in a continued lack of variety.

Would someone in this situation have provided more transparency on what the program is inside to allow the buyer to be more educated in the purchase and spend his money more wisely on a program that he doesn't have instead of a program that he does have.

In the end as enticing as features and addons may be, it is the program itself that is being played by a chess player regardless of beginner to master and here is where the focus on variety in my opinion becomes important for success.

Millennium for example if they now continue to just rehash Richard Lang, would you find this still exciting after 3 or 4 more new computer design launches?

What about asking some other programmers to write a program for an ARM processor? or will it next be another Ed Shroeder, or Frans Morsch or Koning or Kittinger or Nelson or Levy?

Nelson to be fair at least had this enormous ability to create new designs and ideas.

I wonder if someone today in an alone situation would have the vision to develop their marketing to say state something like:

When you have mastered this computer by completing all the tests and by you beating computer more than 50% of the time at tournament level, we would then recommend that you purchase our next model x, y or z for your next level of education that will train you to become a 1600 ELO player, 1800 ELO and so on to master player.

For additional skillful opponents may we suggest you also try out:

x who will give you fits with its powerful attacking play
y a positional wizard
z solid and defensive a hard nut to crack


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

Post by spacious_mind »

When I was still in High School in England in the early 70's, I played for my High School Team and we travelled around the Midlands playing other High Schools in a High School Chess league. One of the schools we played was a blind school, which was quite a unique experience not only because the players were quite good, especially on the higher boards but also how they used this peg board where the pieces at the top were all of course different and their fingers would run across this peg board. touching the tops of pieces at a hundred miles an hour while they were thinking. You their opponent played opposite across them with a normal chess board and after they entered their move on the peg board and announced their move, you would assist in playing their move for them on the regular chess board. If I recall they managed the clock once they made the move on their peg board. (Teams were based on 6 boards back then, don't know if that is still the case nowadays or if they have increased the number of players)

Anyway thinking back on this nowadays I wonder for example if a computer like Alexandra would have been built with a small braille sign in the top left hand corner of each square and braille sign imprinted on each button, if this would have been a hit for use at schools around the world and personal use for all the blind people in the world. The extra cost for this would have been minimal. I could just picture a blind person with his peg board and a computer like Alexandra, playing against the computer.

Fortunately I am not blind, but if I were and into chess then that is something that I would definitely have wanted.

Untapped market regards.....
Nick
User avatar
paulwise3
Senior Member
Posts: 1505
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:56 am
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands

Post by paulwise3 »

Since I was already a good chessplayer before the first dedicated chescomputers came out, being so weak they were of no interest to me, I was for a very long time only following it from a distance.
But I did follow the advances in computer chess programming, albeit not that close too. Here is my vote:

1) Peter Jennings - Sorry, I don't know enough to vote.

2) Ron Nelson - A hero. Made the first critical design choices.

3) Sid Samole - Hero and villain as it seems.

4) David Levy - A hero because of his continuous promotion of computer chess programming.

Like others I think that the bankrupt of dedicated computer firms is mainly caused by the strong PC-chessprograms coming up. For somewhere between 20,- and 150,- you had a very strong program with much more flexibilty and options then a dedicated can ever offer.
So it seems very understandable that a lot of people (including me) did not think just one second about buying an expensive wooden board for 1000,- or more, if you can have a PC for the same money, and for a few bucks more have a very strong chessprogram running on it too. But to me that was not very attractive either, staring at the same screen I had to work with all day...
The only way dedicated computers could stay in the market was to downprice them, and yes, then you are forced to cut in the quality, weather it be in the chessprogram (cheaper programmers) or in the housing. As it became a toy then, and coming from China, do i need to say more...?

Toys are expected to fail in a few years regards,
Paul
2024 Special thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12741
2024 Special results and standings: https://schaakcomputers.nl/paul_w/Tourn ... 25_06.html
If I am mistaken, it must be caused by a horizon effect...
Post Reply