Kittinger to de Koning - the Chessmaster transition

Reinfeld · Post by **Reinfeld** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:38 am

I was reorganizing books and things tonight, and found my old CD of Chessmaster 5000. Along with it was a small brochure for the TASC smartboard and system, generally praising de Koning's achievements. That was fun - I didn't know then what I know now. Closest I'll ever get to an R30, I suspect.

I also ran across my old floppy disks of Chessmaster 3000 (now known to be Kittinger's work). I've managed to run that old program on my Macbook Pro through an emulator, and it's kind of a kick. At any rate, this archiving prompted several thoughts and questions.

1. How strong was Chessmaster 3000 compared to the best Novag/Kittinger boards? Which board comes closest?

The program dates to 1991. Scorpio/Diablo came out the same year. Presumably, the later machines (Emerald, Diamond, etc.) could beat CM 3000 - or could they? And what about Obsidian and Citrine?

(Aside: Citrine - was it a disappointment? It looks like everybody thought the thing would be stronger than it turned out to be, if old threads here and elsewhere are any indication.)

CM 3000 was my first chess program - offhand pickup at a garage sale. Back then, I only had the Excellence board, and I'd learned to survive. CM 3000 creamed me 20 years ago, and it still pushes me around today.

CM 5000 however - that was something else. Remember the wood-panel windows? Plus, so much stronger - the thing stuffed me in garbage cans.

2. Is R30 (2.2 and 2.5) running CM5000? And is RISC 2500/Montreux running CM 4000?

I always thought the R30 was a 4000 version, but I see I was wrong. RISC 2500/Montreux is the 4000 variant, but slightly weaker. R30 is clearly running the 5000 variant, but is 2.5 stronger? Is R-40 CM 5500?

Not big numbers, but these are SSDF games:

Chessmaster 4000 - 18
RISC 2500 (128K) - 12

Chessmaster 5000 - 16
RISC 2500 (128K) - 4

Chessmaster 5000 - 9.5
Montreux - 1.5

R30 v. 2.5 - 14.5
RISC 2500 - 5.5

Montreux - 17.5
Diablo - 5.5

Spitballing regards,

- R.

IA · Post by IA » Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:44 am

Reinfeld wrote:
I also ran across my old floppy disks of Chessmaster 3000 (now known to be Kittinger's work). I've managed to run that old program on my Macbook Pro through an emulator, and it's kind of a kick. At any rate, this archiving prompted several thoughts and questions.

1. How strong was Chessmaster 3000 compared to the best Novag/Kittinger boards? Which board comes closest?

The program dates to 1991. Scorpio/Diablo came out the same year. Presumably, the later machines (Emerald, Diamond, etc.) could beat CM 3000 - or could they? And what about Obsidian and Citrine?

- R.

Hello Reinfeld, CM3000 (David kittinger) has a force field in an existing PC equivalent to Novag Diamond, a +2050 Elo, the program is an enhancement of Novag Super Forte C therefore has a very humanized style of play and the PSH system is very active: http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... edirect=no , all the typical sacrifices of machines Novag makes this program for me is the best chess program in PC the years 80s and having a style of play more humanized, is a gem of chess program, hopefully out a version CM3000 UCI

Regards

Larry · Post by **Larry** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:49 am

Here is a chessmaster version timeline.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessmaster#Timeline

The risc2500 came out with 128kb ram in Oct 1992 which would put
it in the same time zone as CM3000. I heard r2500 = TASC R30 v2.2
Montreux came out in mid 1995 in the time of CM4000, and I have
heard that Montreux = TASC R30 v2.5.
Curiously, TASC R40 predates TASC R30 V2.5 according to Mike Watters'
excellent and reliable Timeline over at www.chesscomputers.org
All chess computer manufacturers should have been diligent in
maintaining archives with details of exact release dates, which dedicateds
coincided with which software versions, production numbers, dates that
each model ceased production, the minutes of meetings, etc etc...for
the sake of posterity.
L

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:25 pm

Don't know, but there might be a version list somewhere that might tie back to the dedicated computers for example top of my head I know the following:

Tasc has:

King 0.5 (Chessmachine)
King 1.0 (Chessmachine)
King 2.0 (Chessmachine)
King 2.2 (R30 2.2 + Chessmachine)
King 2.23 (R30 Sargon version (Cock de Gorter?) = book upgrade on King 2.2)
King 2.5 (R30 & R40)
King 2.54 (Chessmachine)

Saitek has:

Risc 2500 1.03
Risc 2500 1.04

The Risc's sound like version upgrades from King 1.0

CM Software has:

CM 8 = King 3.12
CM 9 = King 3.23
CM10 = King 3.33
CM11 = King 3.5

Regards

Reinfeld · Post by **Reinfeld** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:43 am

Surely undisputed that RISC 2500 is de Koning, which means it can't possibly be based on CM 3000.

CM 4000 Turbo (the first installment by de Koning) comes out for Windows 3.x in 1993, per the timeline Larry provided. But that's after the debut of the RISC 2500 (1992).

Ergo, I'm suggesting that RISC 2500 is running an early version of CM 4000, and the later TASC machines (dating to 1993/4) are running early versions of CM 5000, which came out commercially in 1996. I suppose it depends on how you define "versions." But the strength difference between TASC 2.2 and 2.5 vs RISC 2500/Montreux is considerable by most measures.

Going back to Kittinger - if CM 3000 runs at a 2050 ELO clip on a PC, that seems awfully close to Citrine...

Where is Steve on this?

- R.

Post by **Steve B** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:56 am

Reinfeld wrote: Where is Steve on this?

- R.

as a moderator i try to read all threads here but
the thread deals with the PC version of the King program and as is well known i have no interest in PC programs or PC Chess cards
so while i read threads like this ..i do so with...

Eyes Glazed Over Regards
Steve

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:07 am

Reinfeld wrote:Surely undisputed that RISC 2500 is de Koning, which means it can't possibly be based on CM 3000.

CM 4000 Turbo (the first installment by de Koning) comes out for Windows 3.x in 1993, per the timeline Larry provided. But that's after the debut of the RISC 2500 (1992).

Ergo, I'm suggesting that RISC 2500 is running an early version of CM 4000, and the later TASC machines (dating to 1993/4) are running early versions of CM 5000, which came out commercially in 1996. I suppose it depends on how you define "versions." But the strength difference between TASC 2.2 and 2.5 vs RISC 2500/Montreux is considerable by most measures.

Going back to Kittinger - if CM 3000 runs at a 2050 ELO clip on a PC, that seems awfully close to Citrine...

Where is Steve on this?

- R.

Risc 2500 IMO is running a slightly improved King version 1.0 whereas Montreaux is somewhere between King 2.0 and before King 2.5 (not King 2.5). You have to remember that dedicated units need some planning and manufacturing so they would not necessarily match timelines of commercial chess programs either. Montreaux could be a King 2.5 but I doubt it, I would guess it to before King 2.5.

There is not that much difference in strength between King 1.0, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 therefore running at 14 MHz you would only see that small improvement with Montreaux over Risc 2500. 21 points for example in the Active rating list.

Best regards

Reinfeld · Post by **Reinfeld** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:40 am

There is not that much difference in strength between King 1.0, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 therefore running at 14 MHz you would only see that small improvement with Montreaux over Risc 2500. 21 points for example in the Active rating list.

Really?

Active ratings:

RISC 2500 (14 mhz) - 2241
Montreux (14 mhz) - 2259
R30 2.5 (30 mhz) - 2367
R30 2.2 (30 mhz) - 2369
Tasc King 2.54 (32 mhz) - 2375
R40 2.5 (40 mhz) - 2405

That looks like 100+ ELO points of difference to me. Are you saying that mhz alone account for the strength difference?

On the SSDF list (many more games played), you see this grouping:

RISC 2500 (14 mhz) - 2091
Montreux (14 mhz) - 2093
R30 King 2.0 (30 mhz) - 2196
R30 2.5 (30 mhz) - 2269
CM 5000 (90 mhz) - 2287

Here, the gap between RISC 2500/Montreux and R30 2.5 approaches 180 ELO points - and CM 5000 with triple the mhz barely beats R30 2.5. Again going by SSDF, RISC 2500 holds its own with CM 4000.

Risc 2500 IMO is running a slightly improved King version 1.0 whereas Montreaux is somewhere between King 2.0 and before King 2.5 (not King 2.5).

The numbers above don't seem to support this conjecture, but maybe I'm missing something. I would also be curious about Selective Search numbers, but I don't have access to them. For Steve's sake, let's leave out the PC program part of the discussion.

R30 2.2 and 2.5 are significantly stronger than RISC 2500/Montreux, and the strength difference between the latter two doesn't seem to support the idea that they're running different engine versions. Personally, I think Montreux's larger opening book makes more sense as an explanation.

- R.

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:59 am

Reinfeld wrote:
There is not that much difference in strength between King 1.0, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 therefore running at 14 MHz you would only see that small improvement with Montreaux over Risc 2500. 21 points for example in the Active rating list.
Really?

Active ratings:

RISC 2500 (14 mhz) - 2241
Montreux (14 mhz) - 2259
R30 2.5 (30 mhz) - 2367
R30 2.2 (30 mhz) - 2369
Tasc King 2.54 (32 mhz) - 2375
R40 2.5 (40 mhz) - 2405

That looks like 100+ ELO points of difference to me. Are you saying that mhz alone account for the strength difference?

On the SSDF list (many more games played), you see this grouping:

RISC 2500 (14 mhz) - 2091
Montreux (14 mhz) - 2093
R30 King 2.0 (30 mhz) - 2196
R30 2.5 (30 mhz) - 2269
CM 5000 (90 mhz) - 2287

Here, the gap between RISC 2500/Montreux and R30 2.5 approaches 180 ELO points - and CM 5000 with triple the mhz barely beats R30 2.5. Again going by SSDF, RISC 2500 holds its own with CM 4000.

Risc 2500 IMO is running a slightly improved King version 1.0 whereas Montreaux is somewhere between King 2.0 and before King 2.5 (not King 2.5).
The numbers above don't seem to support this conjecture, but maybe I'm missing something. I would also be curious about Selective Search numbers, but I don't have access to them. For Steve's sake, let's leave out the PC program part of the discussion. R30 2.2 and 2.5 are significantly stronger than RISC 2500/Montreux, and the strength difference between the latter two doesn't seem to support the idea that they're running different engine versions. Personally, I think Montreux's larger opening book makes more sense as an explanation.

- R.

Yes really compare Montreaux and the next CM up on the list and you have your answer 8 points. The R30 and CM 32 32/30 MHz is stronger hardware

btw.. Montreaux was posted as test by Steve which you can compare to the Risc test results. Nothing to do with opening books in these tests. Steve admitted spending 8K on chess software so he cannot discount the chesscards that play on a tasc chessboard same as an R30 does

That's like being a selective breeder and killing off what's imperfect in the breeders eyes

Post by **Steve B** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:02 pm

spacious_mind wrote:
Steve admitted spending 8K on chess software so he cannot discount the chesscards that play on a tasc chessboard same as an R30 does That's like being a selective breeder and killing off what's imperfect in the breeders eyes

Not Discounting the PC Chess Cards..just saying I have no interest in them
anyway I have already stated that the WM does not meet the strict definition of a dedicated computer but the machine is so iconic I had to have it
lets face it Nick..even though the chess cards might have the same program as the R30 and might play exactly the same and might play on the Smartboard..they do not meet any serious definition of a dedicated chess computer in reality

Callin it like it is Regards
Steve

Post by **Steve B** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:08 pm

Reinfeld wrote:

The numbers above don't seem to support this conjecture, but maybe I'm missing something. I would also be curious about Selective Search numbers, but I don't have access to them. For Steve's sake, let's leave out the PC program part of the discussion. R30 2.2 and 2.5 are significantly stronger than RISC 2500/Montreux, and the strength difference between the latter two doesn't seem to support the idea that they're running different engine versions. Personally, I think Montreux's larger opening book makes more sense as an explanation.

- R.

Will Post selective search Rating's for the above four computers later today
Pending Regards
Steve

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:24 pm

Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Steve admitted spending 8K on chess software so he cannot discount the chesscards that play on a tasc chessboard same as an R30 does That's like being a selective breeder and killing off what's imperfect in the breeders eyes
Not Discounting the PC Chess Cards..just saying I have no interest in them
anyway I have already stated that the WM does not meet the strict definition of a dedicated computer but the machine is so iconic I had to have it
lets face it Nick..even though the chess cards might have the same program as the R30 and might play exactly the same and might play on the Smartboard..they do not meet any serious definition of a dedicated chess computer in reality

Callin it like it is Regards
Steve

I know your standpoint Steve, nothing wrong with it. Just couldn't help wanting to elicit a response from you, which btw I knew would be coming

Best regards

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:48 pm

Reinfeld wrote: Ergo, I'm suggesting that RISC 2500 is running an early version of CM 4000, and the later TASC machines (dating to 1993/4) are running early versions of CM 5000, which came out commercially in 1996. I suppose it depends on how you define "versions." But the strength difference between TASC 2.2 and 2.5 vs RISC 2500/Montreux is considerable by most measures.- R.

You cannot say that for sure. Switching from DOS to Win 3.1 had its loss of ratings problems. Switching from 3.1 to 95 same problems. Sometimes even the best of programmers go backwards in strength before they leap forward again. You are better off just following the time lines they are shown in Info:

Engine Overview

Code: Select all

Engine Versionen 

Engine Datum 

   Anmerkung 

  The King 0.5  02.07.1991   
  The King 1.0  01.10.1991   
  The King 2.0  16.11.1992    Saitek Risc 2500&#58;   V1.03 - 14.10.1992   /   V1.04 - 21.10.1992  
  The King 2.20  23.04.1993     identisch mit der Version des R30 V2.2  
  The King 2.54  03.12.1995     R30 V2.5&#58; 26.02.1995   /   Mephisto Montreux&#58; V1.00 10.12.1994  
  Rebel 1.3  22.02.1991     Engine der FinalChessCard - im März 2013 wiederendeckt  
  Rebel 1.7  29.05.1991     Engine der FinalChessCard - im Februar 2013 wiederendeckt  
  Gideon 2.1  19.10.1991   
  Gideon 3.0  14.09.1992     Engine der WM in Vancouver - identisch mit der Version des Mephisto Risc 1MB  
  Gideon 3.1  11.12.1992     Engine der WM in Madrid - identisch mit der Version des Mephisto Risc 2

Taken from here: http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... essMachine

I think that the above fits quite well in what I had written earlier about who is what. Montreaux fits to what I wrote as well.

So does this rating list if you compare where Montreaux lies and where the nearest CM lies as well as where Risc 2500 is.

http://www.schachcomputer.info/html/akt ... liste.html

Also how can you omit CM's and Chess Software based on someone's like and dislike if your admirable search for truth is trying to get to the bottom of things?

Makes no sense regards,

Post by **Steve B** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:50 pm

spacious_mind wrote:
Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Steve admitted spending 8K on chess software so he cannot discount the chesscards that play on a tasc chessboard same as an R30 does That's like being a selective breeder and killing off what's imperfect in the breeders eyes
Not Discounting the PC Chess Cards..just saying I have no interest in them
anyway I have already stated that the WM does not meet the strict definition of a dedicated computer but the machine is so iconic I had to have it
lets face it Nick..even though the chess cards might have the same program as the R30 and might play exactly the same and might play on the Smartboard..they do not meet any serious definition of a dedicated chess computer in reality

Callin it like it is Regards
Steve
I know your standpoint Steve, nothing wrong with it. Just couldn't help wanting to elicit a response from you, which btw I knew would be coming

Best regards

Speaking about eliciting a response..
care to admit how much you paid for your most expensive dedicated chess computer(aside from the Phoenix computers)?
here...ill make it easy for you:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7053

Pushy Regards
Steve

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:52 pm

Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Steve admitted spending 8K on chess software so he cannot discount the chesscards that play on a tasc chessboard same as an R30 does That's like being a selective breeder and killing off what's imperfect in the breeders eyes
Not Discounting the PC Chess Cards..just saying I have no interest in them
anyway I have already stated that the WM does not meet the strict definition of a dedicated computer but the machine is so iconic I had to have it
lets face it Nick..even though the chess cards might have the same program as the R30 and might play exactly the same and might play on the Smartboard..they do not meet any serious definition of a dedicated chess computer in reality

Callin it like it is Regards
Steve
I know your standpoint Steve, nothing wrong with it. Just couldn't help wanting to elicit a response from you, which btw I knew would be coming

Best regards
Speaking about eliciting a response..
care to admit how much you paid for your most expensive dedicated chess computer(aside from the Phoenix computers)?
here...ill make it easy for you:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7053

Pushy Regards
Steve

Yes I admit to owning two TM's

Regards

HIARCS Chess Forums

Kittinger to de Koning - the Chessmaster transition

Kittinger to de Koning - the Chessmaster transition

Re: Kittinger to de Koning - the Chessmaster transition