World Championship Winning Computer Chess Software Program & Downloads for Chess Databases, Analysis and Play on PC, Mac, iPad and iPhone — Visit: Hiarcs.com
"troubled" by the Sunday afternoon blues I set out once again to research the identity of the unidentified chess object that I tried to find any info on in one of my previous posts: the King Arthur by Excalibur. After delving deeply into the often useless nooks and crannies of the Internet, I believe that I've located some fairly constant parameters.
The King Arthur chess computer was coded by Craig Barnes (no small wonder). The program size is 8 kb, and its RAM is meagre (176 bits). The chip is the 68HC05 (single) that runs devastatingly slow, at paltry 1 mhz. It can (not always though) solve up to mate in 4 and runs up to 10 ply deep, if allowed. Most probably it plays around 1400, given the opportunity (that is, if the human does not attack its king right off, since its king safety is very poor). Thus, both Fern and I do overestimate its play as we play for fun, not for blood
Anyway, I am pretty happy now, having, most probably, solved one of the riddles of the Round Table
he dosent mention doing any work for Excalibur though...
Hmmm Regards
Steve
Thanks for reacting, oh Elder One . Anyway, I read that post I think. He said something to the effect that he was involved with the TCA after Saitek had bought Mephisto, etc. I'm also aware that Ron Nelson stated elsewhere that he'd done all the Excaliburs or something to that extent. So what was it that made me claim that the King Arthur was coded by Craig Barnes? Well, a LOT of circumstantial evidence that points his way: the identical program size and the RAM size in the Mephisto America and various cheap Krypton and Millennium models and/or Systema models that all carry THAT cheap Barnes prog in them, the ability to do mate in 4 and last but not least the void in which I can't place any other prolific programmer other than Barnes as the potential author. All circumstantial, yes. But quite possible, I believe that he might have sold the rights for one of his 8 kb proggies to Excalibur, Mephisto (America / Bistro) or Systema. They all appear to have the same streak.
Naturally, I'm keeping this thing quite open: this looked like a nice solution to my little puzzle, but given more data it may turn out quite wrong.
Thanks for reacting, oh Elder One . Anyway, I read that post I think. He said something to the effect that he was involved with the TCA after Saitek had bought Mephisto, etc.
if by TCA you mean the King Arthur then I dont think he mentioned that he was involved with the KA OR Excalibur after Mephisto was bought out
he mentioned he was somewhat involved with Mephisto/Morsch programs at that point
Also problematic is Barnes said his last work on dedicated computers was in 2001 and the KA was released in 2002
Mentat wrote:
So what was it that made me claim that the King Arthur was coded by Craig Barnes? Well, a LOT of circumstantial evidence that points his way:
Naturally, I'm keeping this thing quite open: this looked like a nice solution to my little puzzle, but given more data it may turn out quite wrong.
Yes circumstantial
although i think you do make a reasonable case
reading your lead post i thought perhaps you came across some definitive statement from Barnes himself or some other concrete evidence linking him to the KA
anyway..its always interesting to try to close a hole in our knowledge of the oldies
The King Arthur was one of the very first chess boards I collected when I started my 'phase-2' chess period a few years ago and I did a fair amount of research on it at the time. Unfortunately, 2 of the better internet links I had regarding it no longer work.
However, I do know that the program & ELO was tweaked with each new model release. Thus, there are 3 King Arthur models: 915-1, 915-2, 915W-3. When you press the 'New Game' button, the number that briefly appears to the left of the word 'PLAY' is the software version. For the 3 KA models, the software will be:
915-1: 1.2
915-2: 2.7
915W-3: 3.8
I'm a little confused over the ELOs given the KA in the Wiki. It says that the ELO for the 'Excalibur King Arthur Deluxe' is 1303 and the 'Excalibur King Arthur' is 1333. But the King Arthur Deluxe is the model 915W-3 (has the faux-wood plastic) and to the best of my knowledge was the final model with the highest ELO. I do know for sure it has the software version 3.8 which was the highest of any of the King Arthurs. I have a feeling that the Wiki KA names were simply reversed by mistake.
A few additional thoughts that came to me after the edit time limit on the above post:
I've long since outgrown the King Arthur, but the Deluxe model 915W-3 is a very nice board for a beginner or 'casual' player. You still see this model appear on eBay periodically for a good price. A couple of minor gripes: the LCD could be a little easier to read and, as is true with a number of the Excaliburs, the pieces are a little ugly, particularly the rooks. But a beginner younger person likely wouldn't mind.
SirDave wrote:The King Arthur was one of the very first chess boards I collected when I started my 'phase-2' chess period a few years ago and I did a fair amount of research on it at the time. Unfortunately, 2 of the better internet links I had regarding it no longer work.
However, I do know that the program & ELO was tweaked with each new model release. Thus, there are 3 King Arthur models: 915-1, 915-2, 915W-3. When you press the 'New Game' button, the number that briefly appears to the left of the word 'PLAY' is the software version. For the 3 KA models, the software will be:
915-1: 1.2
915-2: 2.7
915W-3: 3.8
I'm a little confused over the ELOs given the KA in the Wiki. It says that the ELO for the 'Excalibur King Arthur Deluxe' is 1303 and the 'Excalibur King Arthur' is 1333. But the King Arthur Deluxe is the model 915W-3 (has the faux-wood plastic) and to the best of my knowledge was the final model with the highest ELO. I do know for sure it has the software version 3.8 which was the highest of any of the King Arthurs. I have a feeling that the Wiki KA names were simply reversed by mistake.
Mine shows 2.7. I also found it strange that the Wiki showed the Deluxe as weaker... Whatever it is I find it fun to play every now and then and I find its size and form factor just to my taste. Over a cup of coffee or tea it is OK, I even watch TV while playing moves, with the briefest of glances. Its magnetic pieces are so firmly attached there on the board that I have a feeling the whole contraption is one tight and solid bundle, even though it is just plastic covered with a black-and-white sheet glued onto it. I tried it against my Kindle chess and the Kindle just swiped the floor with the King BTW, the little app on the Kindlee plays pretty good chess at lev 10 where it takes 5-7 seconds to move. It is actually TSCP by Tom Kerrigan in disguise, as Peter Hunter (?) used the GPL to modify TSCP and add a couple of new things to it. Now that I mentioned it, I will probably stage a match against one of the Morsch computers soon (probably the Chess Explorer first), just to see whether they can beat the Kindle (@ 1 ghz, I think) running on a Linux distro.
Thanks for reacting, oh Elder One . Anyway, I read that post I think. He said something to the effect that he was involved with the TCA after Saitek had bought Mephisto, etc.
if by TCA you mean the King Arthur then I dont think he mentioned that he was involved with the KA OR Excalibur after Mephisto was bought out
he mentioned he was somewhat involved with Mephisto/Morsch programs at that point
Also problematic is Barnes said his last work on dedicated computers was in 2001 and the KA was released in 2002
Mentat wrote:
So what was it that made me claim that the King Arthur was coded by Craig Barnes? Well, a LOT of circumstantial evidence that points his way:
Naturally, I'm keeping this thing quite open: this looked like a nice solution to my little puzzle, but given more data it may turn out quite wrong.
Yes circumstantial
although i think you do make a reasonable case
reading your lead post i thought perhaps you came across some definitive statement from Barnes himself or some other concrete evidence linking him to the KA
anyway..its always interesting to try to close a hole in our knowledge of the oldies
Archeological Regards
Steve
No, by TCA I meant the Talking Chess Academy Even though sometimes I AM tempted to spell King as CKing (English being a strange language)
may i ask what the differences were between your Phase 1 and Phase 2 collection periods?
Will there be a Phase 3 Regards?
Steve
Phase 1 was the period during which I picked up the Fidelity Chess Challenger 3 (I think- could have been the 11, but it's long gone) at a pretty young age and much later, the Saitek Pocket Plus which sat in a drawer for years. Phase 2 started around 2008-9 to the present during which I've collected more boards than I care to admit.
For my needs, I overdid it a bit, but I'm glad I did because some of my favorite portables and other boards are rarely seen on eBay these days. In fact, I'm surprised at how little of interest appears on eBay lately except for a resurgence of classic wood boards which I'm sure is of great interest to others. However, I'm not very interested in them. If I choose to ever pay megabucks for a board, it will be the Rev. II.
may i ask what the differences were between your Phase 1 and Phase 2 collection periods?
Will there be a Phase 3 Regards?
Steve
Phase 1 was the period during which I picked up the Fidelity Chess Challenger 3 (I think- could have been the 11, but it's long gone) at a pretty young age and much later, the Saitek Pocket Plus which sat in a drawer for years. Phase 2 started around 2008-9 to the present during which I've collected more boards than I care to admit.
For my needs, I overdid it a bit, but I'm glad I did because some of my favorite portables and other boards are rarely seen on eBay these days. In fact, I'm surprised at how little of interest appears on eBay lately except for a resurgence of classic wood boards which I'm sure is of great interest to others. However, I'm not very interested in them. If I choose to ever pay megabucks for a board, it will be the Rev. II.
A Phase 3 is Highly Unlikely Regards,
Dave
Dave, you and I seem to share a moderate and quenchable wish to own chess computers. I am predominantly a chess player who cares to play a game of chess against his computers and have a chance to beat it. Reading and playing chess are among my favourite pastimes. Now, how about this little portable, the Saitek Pocket Plus, have you played against it? I know that it's a small program that must be weak, but can it still be fun and offer at least some resistance in a game? Or may be only a pushover that merits no attention at all. What's your take on it? By the way I am a rapid chess and a blitz guy (currently about 2000+ on FICS).
And, as a side note, I can't find a Par Excellence on Ebay, and would like to buy one for old times sake.
may i ask what the differences were between your Phase 1 and Phase 2 collection periods?
Will there be a Phase 3 Regards?
Steve
Phase 1 was the period during which I picked up the Fidelity Chess Challenger 3 (I think- could have been the 11, but it's long gone) at a pretty young age and much later, the Saitek Pocket Plus which sat in a drawer for years. Phase 2 started around 2008-9 to the present during which I've collected more boards than I care to admit.
For my needs, I overdid it a bit, but I'm glad I did because some of my favorite portables and other boards are rarely seen on eBay these days. In fact, I'm surprised at how little of interest appears on eBay lately except for a resurgence of classic wood boards which I'm sure is of great interest to others. However, I'm not very interested in them. If I choose to ever pay megabucks for a board, it will be the Rev. II.
A Phase 3 is Highly Unlikely Regards,
Dave
Dave, you and I seem to share a moderate and quenchable wish to own chess computers. I am predominantly a chess player who cares to play a game of chess against his computers and have a chance to beat it. Reading and playing chess are among my favourite pastimes. Now, how about this little portable, the Saitek Pocket Plus, have you played against it? I know that it's a small program that must be weak, but can it still be fun and offer at least some resistance in a game? Or may be only a pushover that merits no attention at all. What's your take on it? By the way I am a rapid chess and a blitz guy (currently about 2000+ on FICS).
And, as a side note, I can't find a Par Excellence on Ebay, and would like to buy one for old times sake.
Yes, I think that our playing habits have some similarities though at 2000+ on FICS, you are a stronger player than I am. I tend to play under 2 different circumstances: 1. Playing stronger boards taking all the time in the world (with max concentration) to make my moves and 2. Playing weaker boards (that I can ordinarily beat if I take my time) more casually or at a faster speed (though not at the blitz level). Like you, I often like to play boards I can beat because as I'm getting older, my ego demands it!
As for the Saitek Pocket Plus: It plays a nice little game which is different than the King Arthur, but, in the end, not really stronger. FWIW, one of my favorite boards to play more casually is the Novag Star Opal -Elo around 1400. It has a great openings diversity so you're never sure what it is initially going to throw at you. I've talked about it before here (as also in other threads has Monsieur Plastique who is a Star Opal expert- he has recommended playing the Star Opal at the fixed time levels for the best game):
The King Arthur is an early Excalibur program written by Ron Nelson. Craig Barnes has no association with it whatsoever but it is correct that he did have a lot to do with the 8K programs written for Saitek, such as Sensor XL, etc.
I am not sure where the 8K association with King Arthur comes from. All the Ron Nelson Excalibur programs are 32K ROM and the programs started off with 6502 processors at varying clock speeds back in the 73 level days (from memory 5 to 6 Mhz). By the time the program had been "refined" towards the end of the Excalibur days, it was still a 32K program but significantly stronger owing to the use of RISC processors and faster clock speeds, much more level variety, etc.
So basically you are starting off with early programs along the evolutionary line (73 level King Arthur running on a 6502 at slow clock speeds) through to the last (Alexandra / Deluxe Talking Touch Chess) with much more expansive levels, H8 processor and around the 10 Mhz mark.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
SirDave wrote:he has recommended playing the Star Opal at the fixed time levels for the best game):
Most definitely. The machine "comes alive" on those fixed levels. You can even be bold and stick a 22 Mhz processor in it, then use the fixed levels WC6, etc for a 40/2 "tournament" game. You'd get close to 1600 ELO so configured.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
may i ask what the differences were between your Phase 1 and Phase 2 collection periods?
Will there be a Phase 3 Regards?
Steve
Phase 1 was the period during which I picked up the Fidelity Chess Challenger 3 (I think- could have been the 11, but it's long gone) at a pretty young age and much later, the Saitek Pocket Plus which sat in a drawer for years. Phase 2 started around 2008-9 to the present during which I've collected more boards than I care to admit.
For my needs, I overdid it a bit, but I'm glad I did because some of my favorite portables and other boards are rarely seen on eBay these days. In fact, I'm surprised at how little of interest appears on eBay lately except for a resurgence of classic wood boards which I'm sure is of great interest to others. However, I'm not very interested in them. If I choose to ever pay megabucks for a board, it will be the Rev. II.
A Phase 3 is Highly Unlikely Regards,
Dave
Ahhh I see
bought a few computers in your formative years...stopped..then began again
using that methodology.. since I started collecting from 1977 and continued without stopping until this day ..I guess I am still in
Phase I Regards
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BTW, the little app on the Kindlee plays pretty good chess at lev 10 where it takes 5-7 seconds to move. It is actually TSCP by Tom Kerrigan in disguise, as Peter Hunter (?) used the GPL to modify TSCP and add a couple of new things to it. Now that I mentioned it, I will probably stage a match against one of the Morsch computers soon (probably the Chess Explorer first), just to see whether they can beat the Kindle (@ 1 ghz, I think) running on a Linux distro.