Final, definitive Post about Nelson....

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:57 pm

Mike Watters wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Hi Mike,

Thanks for putting all that together. We differ in a few places, ie

Stiletto (missing) = 1993
Stiletto Deluxe II (missing=1994),
Stiletto Deluxe = 1993 (you show it as 1994 (that's the date for Stiletto II Stiletto II Deluxe))

Also I believe Mirage came out for Christmas 1996?

Correct there is a gap, that is the period where Excalibur had find other sources to make computers.

That could also be the period for Steve's investment loss story. ie. lots of orders from America but nothing to delivers. Down payments lost in liquidation. Who knows.

It's easy to mix up CXG & Krypton. (Not Steve but Ron Nelson talking. It would be easy for him to mix up one with the other since owner for both was the same)

Best regards
Hi Nick

Many thanks. Corrections done. I had got myself in a bit of a muddle with the five Stilettos. No idea where the Mirage in 1997 first came from. Possibly Kurt K.

I have also added the Lancer Express, though this seems to be a Sharper Image variant, and the LCD Chess Express. Also switched Deluxe Talking Touch Chess to 2005. We only now differ on 'The Excalibur' which I prefer to call the Excalibur Electronic Chess Computer. Are the Platinum Grandmaster or Walnut Mirage worthy of separate model status? Probably not.

Also sorted Tiger out as much as possible. Doing the same for Millennium would be a step too far.

Now 62 Excalibur models so far (without minor variations) 6 originating from CXG, 4 Novag, 1 Lexibook, at least 12 from Krypton/Systema, 7 shared mostly with RadioShack. From your 1996/97 brochure lists missing Legend III, Avenger and Micro Chess. Neither you nor Maurice seem to have those. Tom had Tiger and Systema Micro Chess clones.

Bought a Systema today just to see what is inside. Help!

All the best
Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks, regarding Micro Chess I believe that is the same one as from Tiger Electronics. I have a Tiger one at home somewhere. When I find it I will take a closer look at it. The Excalibur Catalog picture is identical to what the Tiger looks like.

best regards

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:33 pm

Mike Watters wrote:
Hi Nick

Many thanks. Corrections done. I had got myself in a bit of a muddle with the five Stilettos. No idea where the Mirage in 1997 first came from. Possibly Kurt K.

I have also added the Lancer Express, though this seems to be a Sharper Image variant, and the LCD Chess Express. Also switched Deluxe Talking Touch Chess to 2005. We only now differ on 'The Excalibur' which I prefer to call the Excalibur Electronic Chess Computer. Are the Platinum Grandmaster or Walnut Mirage worthy of separate model status? Probably not.

Also sorted Tiger out as much as possible. Doing the same for Millennium would be a step too far.

Now 62 Excalibur models so far (without minor variations) 6 originating from CXG, 4 Novag, 1 Lexibook, at least 12 from Krypton/Systema, 7 shared mostly with RadioShack. From your 1996/97 brochure lists missing Legend III, Avenger and Micro Chess. Neither you nor Maurice seem to have those. Tom had Tiger and Systema Micro Chess clones.

Bought a Systema today just to see what is inside. Help!

All the best
Mike

Yes regarding "The Excalibur". The Catalog references Model 932ED-2 as "The Excalibur". The computer itself has no name on it other than the Model Number label at the back of the computer. I renamed mine on my Website to "The Excalibur" once I saw the model number in the catalog. The housing is identical to Igor. 932ED is also Stiletto III's model name. Makes you think that they might be the same but just with different housings.

I show 64 on my page therefore missing to be pretty much complete on the page are the ones below:

Sabre
Avenger (Steve has this one)
Legend III
Accolade which I am sure is from 1993. (Steve)
GM Platinum (which I have)
Mirage Marble (Steve)
Micro Chess

That would make it 71 in total for Excalibur / EB Excalibur.

ps. there was also an Excalibur Comet which would make it 72.

Regards

mrcdoc · Post by **mrcdoc** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:02 am

Hi Nick and Mike,

I have the Excalibur 932ED-2.
On the box, it is a photo of the computer with its name "Excalibur" (nothing to do with the logo of the company that is written on the left side of the box).
For sure, the computer itself has the name "Excalibur" written just under the display, on the top of the buttons.
By the way, on the catalog, the photo clearly shows the name "Excalibur" under the display...
Yes, 932ED is the model number of the Stiletto III... but not only the housing is different, but also the number of levels:
- 433 level setting for "Excalibur" and,
- 72 levels of play for the Stiletto III.
I will look more carefully to what is their hardware.
Kind regards,

Maurice

Mike Watters · Post by **Mike Watters** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:09 am

mrcdoc wrote:Hi Nick and Mike,

I have the Excalibur 932ED-2.
On the box, it is a photo of the computer with its name "Excalibur" (nothing to do with the logo of the company that is written on the left side of the box).
For sure, the computer itself has the name "Excalibur" written just under the display, on the top of the buttons.
By the way, on the catalog, the photo clearly shows the name "Excalibur" under the display...
Yes, 932ED is the model number of the Stiletto III... but not only the housing is different, but also the number of levels:
- 433 level setting for "Excalibur" and,
- 72 levels of play for the Stiletto III.
I will look more carefully to what is their hardware.
Kind regards,

Maurice

Hi Maurice

I hope you are very well.
OK guys I am corrected. 'Excalibur The Excalibur' it is.
Do you have an opinion about this Ron Nelson thing?

Nick

Your 64 includes the Platinium Grandmaster which is why I asked whether this needs to be treated as a separate model i.e. there is a bigger difference than just the colour? I read somewhere they are otherwise identical. Same applies to the Marble Mirage? The only other difference between us at the moment is that I have put model 375 and 375-1 together, these are the LCD Computer Chess with the key layout differences. Trying to not overcomplicate the Timeline.

The Avenger I have added because someone actually has one. Who knows with the Legend III?

There is one Excalibur brochure on Schachcomputer.info. Are there any others on the web? We never got to hear about Excaliburs on this side of the pond.

All the best
Mike

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:59 am

Mike Watters wrote:
mrcdoc wrote:Hi Nick and Mike,

I have the Excalibur 932ED-2.
On the box, it is a photo of the computer with its name "Excalibur" (nothing to do with the logo of the company that is written on the left side of the box).
For sure, the computer itself has the name "Excalibur" written just under the display, on the top of the buttons.
By the way, on the catalog, the photo clearly shows the name "Excalibur" under the display...
Yes, 932ED is the model number of the Stiletto III... but not only the housing is different, but also the number of levels:
- 433 level setting for "Excalibur" and,
- 72 levels of play for the Stiletto III.
I will look more carefully to what is their hardware.
Kind regards,

Maurice
Hi Maurice

I hope you are very well.
OK guys I am corrected. 'Excalibur The Excalibur' it is.
Do you have an opinion about this Ron Nelson thing?

Nick

Your 64 includes the Platinium Grandmaster which is why I asked whether this needs to be treated as a separate model i.e. there is a bigger difference than just the colour? I read somewhere they are otherwise identical. Same applies to the Marble Mirage? The only other difference between us at the moment is that I have put model 375 and 375-1 together, these are the LCD Computer Chess with the key layout differences. Trying to not overcomplicate the Timeline.

The Avenger I have added because someone actually has one. Who knows with the Legend III?

There is one Excalibur brochure on Schachcomputer.info. Are there any others on the web? We never got to hear about Excaliburs on this side of the pond.

All the best
Mike

Hi Mike,
I don't know if there is a difference on the GM's but will check. I try collect by Model #'s as often there is a little difference ie as in the case of RS2150 and 1680X. It makes me want to check them out and look at details a little closer.

Best regards

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:12 am

mrcdoc wrote:Hi Nick and Mike,

I have the Excalibur 932ED-2.
On the box, it is a photo of the computer with its name "Excalibur" (nothing to do with the logo of the company that is written on the left side of the box).
For sure, the computer itself has the name "Excalibur" written just under the display, on the top of the buttons.
By the way, on the catalog, the photo clearly shows the name "Excalibur" under the display...
Yes, 932ED is the model number of the Stiletto III... but not only the housing is different, but also the number of levels:
- 433 level setting for "Excalibur" and,
- 72 levels of play for the Stiletto III.
I will look more carefully to what is their hardware.
Kind regards,

Maurice

Hi Maurice,
Yes that is why I struggled to identify it at first. I had manual and computer but no box. So I was never sure what it was until I spotted it in a catalog.
Also I had entered 72 Levels on my Website with manual showing as well. I will need to go back and check the manual. It is possible that I carried that information over from another Excalibur computer page that I created and forgotten to fix.
In fact I just looked back at the U1400 Tournament I played and it played at level 25 whereas Stiletto III played at level 48 so indeed they seem to be different albeit sharing the same Model series.

Ps.. also in some computers the Manufacturer's advertised hundreds of levels because they count every play style and whatever else they could think of but in fact play levels where a lot less.

I need to check, regards

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:43 am

Mike Watters wrote:
Your 64 includes the Platinium Grandmaster which is why I asked whether this needs to be treated as a separate model i.e. there is a bigger difference than just the colour? I read somewhere they are otherwise identical. Same applies to the Marble Mirage? The only other difference between us at the moment is that I have put model 375 and 375-1 together, these are the LCD Computer Chess with the key layout differences. Trying to not overcomplicate the Timeline.

Hi Mike,

As I said I try to be complete with Model #'s.

Also the LCD Chess are complicated. IMO Model 375 is not as strong as 375-1 so I keep them separated they are IMO not exactly the same. Same with 375-2.

And ooops you are right I must have remembered to update the page by including a box for the Platinum. I can't even remember doing that

Too much testing makes me forget everything else apparently

There are still a lot of computers that I need to add boxes for and complete. I think I will never get finished.

Best regards

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:56 pm

Mike Watters wrote:
mrcdoc wrote: The Avenger I have added because someone actually has one. Who knows with the Legend III?

There is one Excalibur brochure on Schachcomputer.info. Are there any others on the web? We never got to hear about Excaliburs on this side of the pond.

All the best
Mike
Yes there are about 3 or 4 Excalbur Brochures (maybe more). They were often included in Excalibur boxes.

I will get some of these scanned.

Regarding Legend III, I am assuming it was the desk version of Avenger. Steve B. had posted a test a while back on the Avenger and it played (hate to say it because of our authorship discussions) like a Horvath.

Best regards

mclane · Post by **mclane** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:59 pm

Interesting game between spracklens Mach III engine and Nelsons Igor engine:

Code: Select all

&#91;Event "40/120, "&#93;
&#91;Site "SCW"&#93;
&#91;Date "2015.06.28"&#93;
&#91;Round "1"&#93;
&#91;White "Excalibur Igor 24mhz"&#93;
&#91;Black "Fidelity Designer 2265 20mhz"&#93;
&#91;ECO "D49"&#93;
&#91;Result "1-0"&#93;

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 
dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11. Nxb5 
Nxe5 12. Nxe5 axb5 13. Qf3 Qa5+ 14. Kd1 Ra6 15. Bd2 Qb6 
16. Rc1 Bd7 17. Nxd7 Kxd7 18. a3 Be7 19. Ke1 Raa8 20. g4 b4 
21. g5 bxa3 22. gxf6 axb2 23. Rb1 Bxf6 24. Bxh7 Ra1 25. Be4 
Rxb1+ 26. Bxb1 Qb5 27. Rg1 Rxh2 28. Bf4 Rh8 29. Qa3 Rc8 
30. Kd2 Be7 31. Qd3 Qc5 32. Ke2 g6 33. f3 e5 34. Bg3 Qd5 
35. Rd1 f5 36. Kf2 Rc1 37. Rd2 f4 38. Bh2 Qb7 39. Qxg6 Qb5 
40. Qf5+ Ke8 41. Qh5+ Kd8 1-0

mclane · Post by **mclane** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:41 pm

Sorry the Header of the game was wrong,
The right one is

Code: Select all

&#91;Event "40/120, "&#93; 
&#91;Site "SCW"&#93; 
&#91;Date "2015.06.28"&#93; 
&#91;Round "1"&#93; 
&#91;White "Fidelity Designer 2265 20mhz"&#93; 
&#91;Black "Excalibur Igor 24mhz"&#93; 
&#91;ECO "D49"&#93; 
&#91;Result "0-1"&#93; 

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 
dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11. Nxb5 
Nxe5 12. Nxe5 axb5 13. Qf3 Qa5+ 14. Kd1 Ra6 15. Bd2 Qb6 
16. Rc1 Bd7 17. Nxd7 Kxd7 18. a3 Be7 19. Ke1 Raa8 20. g4 b4 
21. g5 bxa3 22. gxf6 axb2 23. Rb1 Bxf6 24. Bxh7 Ra1 25. Be4 
Rxb1+ 26. Bxb1 Qb5 27. Rg1 Rxh2 28. Bf4 Rh8 29. Qa3 Rc8 
30. Kd2 Be7 31. Qd3 Qc5 32. Ke2 g6 33. f3 e5 34. Bg3 Qd5 
35. Rd1 f5 36. Kf2 Rc1 37. Rd2 f4 38. Bh2 Qb7 39. Qxg6 Qb5 
40. Qf5+ Ke8 41. Qh5+ Kd8 0-1

SirDave · Post by **SirDave** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:58 pm

That's the Igor on steroids (ie. that has been stepped up to the 24mhz) isn't it?

mclane · Post by **mclane** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:15 pm

Yes. But it wins because it plays strong. The doubling of the speed helps a little.

spacious_mind · Post by **spacious_mind** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:43 pm

mclane wrote:Yes. But it wins because it plays strong. The doubling of the speed helps a little.

Hi Thorsten,

Interesting game. Shows that Designer has weaknesses in certain situations, also shows that Igor in certain situations can play a better opponent.

Your games are hard to follow though because you play both computers at speeds that are not original hardware. Therefore if someone wanted try it out on their computers, they can't do it. Pity.

If it is a point that you want to make then please explain.

Pretty much every computer can play under certain circumstances out of its skin. Here are just a few examples from Schachcomputer.Info's 3rd WM:

Excalibur Grandmaster – Fidelity Mach IV ½ : ½
RS Champion 2250XL – Excalibur Grandmaster ½ : ½
TASC CM 3.1 32 MHz – Novag Super Constellation ½ : ½
Saitek Simultano – Saitek Cosmos 24 MHz 1 : 0
Saitek Travel Champion 2080 – TASC R30 V2.5 ½ : ½

Simultano beating Cosmos 24 MHz? Connie nearly beating World Champion Gideon 3.1 Madrid?

Best regards

mclane · Post by **mclane** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:22 pm

The Point is that igor/grandmaster plays unconventional but strong.
The style is strange.
On the other hand the tactical capability of this engine is high.

Reinfeld · Post by **Reinfeld** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:35 am

Hello, friends. Sorry for butting in and being absent. Great thread.

I agree that Igor/GM plays a strange but strong game. I am trying to find an analogy to describe it, and I don't have moves in hand to support my position; these are just impressions, without discussing the Nelson/Horvath question.

We have lots of measurements, but it's tough to measure feel, as in the way it feels to sit down and play these machines in a screw-around way, perhaps armed with a cooling beverage, hanging with Fernando and Thorsten.

1. Igor/GM is crudely materialistic. In this sense, it does seem to differ from the Horvath program in Systema Challenge, a more passive player to my eye.

Another way to say it - Challenge feels wimpy. It plays not to lose. Igor/GM doesn't do this. It swings wild, tries to counter and punch you in the mouth, but it recovers from misses. Igor seems to have different priorities - more like aggressive, anti-positional liquidation, but without vision.

2. Igor/GM doesn't play the pleasingly silly, speculative moves I associate with Kittinger machines. Nor does it have the steamrolling, pitiless quality of Spracklen machines, or the whiplash tricks of Morsch. It shows nothing like the anti-provocative style of Lang machines, and it is not well-rounded like Schroder, who is beginning to be my favorite programmer.

3. In style, Igor/GM reminds me most of another crude program I've never seen mentioned here: The Oak Systems engine for Kindle, a pretty simple player, recently jacked up with an opening book. This software is a dumb brute, especially at lower levels. It almost always takes material when offered, at the expense of position. Igor feels more sophisticated, but the approach is similar.

Now, despite my promise, an attempt to address the Horvath theory. Random thoughts, no particular order:

a. I've weighed in on this lingering debate elsewhere, noticing housing and level tuning similarities between Horvath/Challenge/Regency and Igor, but I think Nick's old argument suggesting that Igor is a re-tuned Horvath with more aggressive priorities makes a certain amount of sense.

b. What one wants to know is similarity, right? isn't that the point? How to find out? How to be sure?

c. We have pure hardware tests based on non-book moves (for instance, Steve, long ago, showed me the way to measure which model of Excellence I owned by starting with 1. f3 and measuring response time.)

d. We have Nick's ever-evolving clone test, which sets a threshold of 90 percent similarity while demonstrating conclusively that known machines of similar strength by different programmers indeed behave differently.

e. We have test suites based on positions. When I look at Wiki-Elo, I see no Colditz test results for Igor/GM. I see a set for Challenge/Regency/Legend II, however. Surely running a Colditz test on Igor/GM isn't too much trouble? No BT test results, either, though I recognize those are better for stronger machines.

f. The strong Excalibur machines add to that voluminous, vague ELO level of 1750-1800+, where some of our most beloved machines reside. And they all have the same tedious tendency to suck at endgames, where the horizon gets too long.

g. Is there an unexplored testing possibility here? A group of endgames beyond the horizon effect that would show the differing tendencies of the Excalibur machines (and others?) In other words, what is the choice these machines make when no clear choice exists? Any juice here?

- R.