About Ivan the Conqueror Rating.

[Fernando]

Rating of comps has always been a confused thing. Makers allege extra high ratings, critics low down those 200 or 300 points, different measures give different values, the experience of players is hugely unequal, comps-comps competitions gives another evaluation, etc.
It is the case of every comp. ever made, butn now I want to discuss the case of Ivan the Conqueror.
If you go to WWW, you will find from 2000 to 1750 Elo ratings.
Some say it is expert level, some others that it is for "weak" club players or occasional ones....
WHAT IS IT?
My experience is this:
When I play it it looks to me LOT stronger than Alexandra, which theoretically is almost the same thing.. It positional acumen is more perceptive -without being a master- and very much strong in its tactics.
I have lost MANY games due to my incapacity to tune myself as I should to play it. It always shape me the feeling that is "just" a 1750 player.
I wonder how many of you have really played this contrivance and which has been your results.
My guess. IT is in fact an around 2000 elo player.

Defeated again regards
Fern

[Fernando]

well, finally I got the animus enough to play really at my best and I crushed badly the bloody thing. But, how arduous is to do that, to take REALLY seriously a machine that is presented as a toy!
If we can lean something playing these machine is precisely NOT to be as the rabbit in his race with the turtle.

Fern

[Larry]

Rating of comps has always been a confused thing. Makers allege extra high ratings, critics low down those 200 or 300 points, different measures give different values, the experience of players is hugely unequal, comps-comps competitions gives another evaluation, etc.
It is the case of every comp. ever made, butn now I want to discuss the case of Ivan the Conqueror.
If you go to WWW, you will find from 2000 to 1750 Elo ratings.
Some say it is expert level, some others that it is for "weak" club players or occasional ones....
WHAT IS IT?
My experience is this:
When I play it it looks to me LOT stronger than Alexandra, which theoretically is almost the same thing.. It positional acumen is more perceptive -without being a master- and very much strong in its tactics.
I have lost MANY games due to my incapacity to tune myself as I should to play it. It always shape me the feeling that is "just" a 1750 player.
I wonder how many of you have really played this contrivance and which has been your results.
My guess. IT is in fact an around 2000 elo player.

Defeated again regards
Fern

This is one model I never owned. I was'nt happy with the format... pretty
weak on the fast level and me having no patience anymore for the slower
time controls. I'm not interested in the voice function anymore.... computers,
like children, should be seen but not heard. I'm speaking here as a former
"Igor" owner. Pretty much same machine from what I hear. Sold it some time
back.
I looked on schachcomputer.info and they don't even give a program
author for it. Is it a Spracklen? Mixture of Spracklen and Nelson with a dash
of Morsch thrown in? Programs are thrown together by multiple authors
nowadays. If it makes dumbass pointless rook moves when it's stuck for
a move, then that points to the Spracklens.
L

[Steve B]

I looked on schachcomputer.info and they don't even give a program
author for it. Is it a Spracklen? Mixture of Spracklen and Nelson with a dash
of Morsch thrown in?
L

My vote is Chrilly Donninger

Hydra Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

Donninger?
WHY?????

[Fernando]

Rating of comps has always been a confused thing. Makers allege extra high ratings, critics low down those 200 or 300 points, different measures give different values, the experience of players is hugely unequal, comps-comps competitions gives another evaluation, etc.
It is the case of every comp. ever made, butn now I want to discuss the case of Ivan the Conqueror.
If you go to WWW, you will find from 2000 to 1750 Elo ratings.
Some say it is expert level, some others that it is for "weak" club players or occasional ones....
WHAT IS IT?
My experience is this:
When I play it it looks to me LOT stronger than Alexandra, which theoretically is almost the same thing.. It positional acumen is more perceptive -without being a master- and very much strong in its tactics.
I have lost MANY games due to my incapacity to tune myself as I should to play it. It always shape me the feeling that is "just" a 1750 player.
I wonder how many of you have really played this contrivance and which has been your results.
My guess. IT is in fact an around 2000 elo player.

Defeated again regards
Fern

This is one model I never owned. I was'nt happy with the format... pretty
weak on the fast level and me having no patience anymore for the slower
time controls. I'm not interested in the voice function anymore.... computers,
like children, should be seen but not heard. I'm speaking here as a former
"Igor" owner. Pretty much same machine from what I hear. Sold it some time
back.
I looked on schachcomputer.info and they don't even give a program
author for it. Is it a Spracklen? Mixture of Spracklen and Nelson with a dash
of Morsch thrown in? Programs are thrown together by multiple authors
nowadays. If it makes dumbass pointless rook moves when it's stuck for
a move, then that points to the Spracklens.
L

Larry, you are losing much enjoyment if you do not play relatively long games and just push pieces in a fast game. These last kind of games we tend to lose, does not give nothing and you finish the game with bad taste in the mouth.
It is in long games -say, 40/1 hour- that you really play chess, see how good is the machine and how good are you.
In fast controls almost every dedicated unit is very disappointing. Contrary to current software that in a couple of second go anyway as deep as 10-12 ply, these machines need a couple of minutes to reach 6 ply. Less than that you have not a decent game.
Well, just my opinion-..

Fern

[pr1uk]

Larry, you are losing much enjoyment if you do not play relatively long games and just push pieces in a fast game. These last kind of games we tend to lose, does not give nothing and you finish the game with bad taste in the mouth.
It is in long games -say, 40/1 hour- that you really play chess, see how good is the machine and how good are you.
In fast controls almost every dedicated unit is very disappointing. Contrary to current software that in a couple of second go anyway as deep as 10-12 ply, these machines need a couple of minutes to reach 6 ply. Less than that you have not a decent game.
Well, just my opinion-..

Fern

My thoughts too i love a long game after all for me a retired old man what's the rush i love playing over a wooden board with real wooden pieces and no worries about time.


Peter

[Fernando]

Larry, you are losing much enjoyment if you do not play relatively long games and just push pieces in a fast game. These last kind of games we tend to lose, does not give nothing and you finish the game with bad taste in the mouth.
It is in long games -say, 40/1 hour- that you really play chess, see how good is the machine and how good are you.
In fast controls almost every dedicated unit is very disappointing. Contrary to current software that in a couple of second go anyway as deep as 10-12 ply, these machines need a couple of minutes to reach 6 ply. Less than that you have not a decent game.
Well, just my opinion-..

Fern

My thoughts too i love a long game after all for me a retired old man what's the rush i love playing over a wooden board with real wooden pieces and no worries about time.


Peter

How old are you? Your words sounds as said by Matusalem. I am 66 and still working in 4 or 5 different things, TV, Radio, magazines, writing books, etc. We are NOT old men, pal, just used and experienced....

[IanO]

Ivan the Conqueror... WHAT IS IT?

Fern

Excalibur's first branch off of Horvath's Regency/Legend II engine, with Nelson simplifying the evaluation function and adding tricks he learned while working with the Spracklens. Igor/GM is the next branch. Alexandra and following products were complete rewrites for the weaker target market of rank beginners.

[Fernando]

Ivan the Conqueror... WHAT IS IT?

Fern

Excalibur's first branch off of Horvath's Regency/Legend II engine, with Nelson simplifying the evaluation function and adding tricks he learned while working with the Spracklens. Igor/GM is the next branch. Alexandra and following products were complete rewrites for the weaker target market of rank beginners.

You believe, speculate or guess all that OR you have some data to support it?

[Steve B]

Donninger?
WHY?????

no real reason other then he is the only programmer left who has not yet been named as a programmer for an Excalibur computer

Tongue N Cheek Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

Donninger?
WHY?????

no real reason other then he is the only programmer left who has not yet been named as a programmer for an Excalibur computer

Tongue N Cheek Regards
Steve

After I wrote my post I realized you was joking. But you are wrong anyway. There are lot of programmers not still mentioned. In fact, there is one that has been mentioned but denied as one of them; Ron Nelson.
Ron has bested a record: he programmed many, appears as probable in many more and is negated in all of them, exception made of CC7.

Paradox regards
Fern

[Steve B]

In fact, there is one that has been mentioned but denied as one of them; Ron Nelson.
Ron has bested a record: he programmed many, appears as probable in many more and is negated in all of them, exception made of CC7.

give it time
the CC7 will be taken away from him as well
Re-writing History Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

In fact, there is one that has been mentioned but denied as one of them; Ron Nelson.
Ron has bested a record: he programmed many, appears as probable in many more and is negated in all of them, exception made of CC7.

give it time
the CC7 will be taken away from him as well
Re-writing History Regards
Steve

In fact there is a rumor that CC7 was programmed by Lang when he was 4 years old.

Archaeology regards
Fern

[Monsieur Plastique]

My thoughts too i love a long game after all for me a retired old man what's the rush i love playing over a wooden board with real wooden pieces and no worries about time.

Good to see there are those around who still like to play a long game. For my own part the only games I play are either 40 in 2 or 40 in 2.5. I will play the occasional quick game against HIARCS on my main computer and of course I use it to show me where I go wrong, but it is mainly slow stuff for me.

I do have a little Powerbrain brand dedicated LCD handheld chess computer beside the bed which is also good for fast games because it has the same strengths and weakenesses as a human (makes very plausible moves but does not have the sheer grunt to blow me away with a combo like a Kittinger / Morsch / Lang / Schroder machine would).

My excuse: my brain is not as fast as it used to be and I'm just never comfortable making a chess move without having a considered understanding of what I am doing and at least doing a reasonably thorough analysis (versus doing a really fast analysis and moving more on instinct and intuition which is - I feel - they way most of us have to play very fast chess).