Question for Novag Obsidian owners

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.
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Question for Novag Obsidian owners

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Hi,

I have a question for Obsidian owners regarding the openings book. It has been discussed here in the past that the book is extremely narrow in terms of the computer's preferred choice (as opposed to what the computer actually knows - two completely different things).

It seems the machine has good variety when playing White and that for some reason the machine has problems with variety when playing Black.

So my first question is, has anyone who recently bought an Obsidian found the above not to be the case? I am wondering if Novag may have changed the openings book over the last few years? I am guessing this is unlikely, but for example, later Citrines had book bugs fixed so I am wondering if the same thing may have ocurred with the Obsidian?

Failing that, what is the variety like for Black if you force the computer to play a first move for Black that it does not favour? In other words, is the lack of a variety just the problem for the first move, or does it stick to a very narrow repertoire deep into the lines it knows? For example, if you force it to play 1...f5 in response to 1. d4, does it stay in book and does it play various Dutches or will it still only play one line? Or if you make it play 1...c5 in response to 1...e4, does it have good variety in Sicilians or will it just stick to a favourite line? Or does it still want to play a very narrow repertoire all the way to the end of the book?

I guess I am trying to determine that if I want variety out of such a machine, whether I more or less have to forget about the in-built book and just play against an engine with it's book for the first 10 moves or so? A pretty nasty and ugly solution for a premium chess computer built after 1979, but perhaps it is the only way to avoid being bored to tears with this machine as a regular partner?
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

So does no-one play an Obisidian here? 8) Or do the games only last one move? :wink:
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
LWSteve
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:26 pm
Location: WA USA

Post by LWSteve »

Monsieur Plastique wrote:So does no-one play an Obisidian here? 8) Or do the games only last one move? :wink:
Hans and I both believe that Citrine and Obsidian though they are both Novag's... Neither is a Kittinger programmed Novag!

We can tell by the way they play. (their playing style)
Their King protection is not very good.
Neither can plan ahead like a Kittinger Novag can.
Their defense can both be really porous at times.

My Super Forte 'C' could probably whip both of them in a best of 5.

Citrine will open up with many different openings against me when I'm playing black. (which is cool)

But when I'm white, Citrine plays the same moves against my openings every single time!
I have to use the "take back" on Citrine's black pieces just to get some variety into the game when I'm playing white.
And that random function on Citrine is not worth a hill of Navy Beans!

Obsidian... that thing is a cross between Boris and a Centurion. Its a Morphodite! :lol:

Obsidian and Citrine?? Maybe both were programmed by Abbott and Costello.

LW

User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Hi Steve,

It is interesting that you say they were not programmed By Kittinger. I don't know if I could make such a claim myself, though I do seem to notice a different style of play compared to older Novag machines. I am a relatively weak player and tried a game against the Citrine last week with a significant time handicap in my favour (the machine is about 400 points stronger than I am).

I was a bit surprised that not only did the computer not do everything in it's power to keep the game open but it also took opportunities to swap off material (mind you, I was deliberately trying to close the game and deliberately created situations where it had a chance to swap material, only because I was going to be stoked to merely draw against it). So it was a bit of a sterile draw in the end. And I am not sure that giving it lots of time actually changes it's playing style so much as just let's it see a lot more and therefore significantly improves tactical strength.

On the other hand, I was very impressed with the variety in the Citrine book, but not with the holes in the book. For example, 1 d4...Nf6 2. Nf3 and it is out of book, which to me is inexcusible, given that this is a standard way of hedging one's bets on numerous opening variations without a commitment required in the first two moves. But you mention a lack of variety as black, yet the very first opening it ever played against me with the Black pieces was Owen's Defence! So I wonder if your Citrine is one of those with the original book versus later versions with amendments made to the book?

I would be very interested in a best of 10 Super Forte C versus Citrine and I would be interested to see the games, just as much to know the score as I would to contrast the playing styles.

My feeling is the two last Novags are Kittinger programs but there have been modifications to them (which were not by Kittinger). And I suspect these were more to adapt the programs to the hardware and interfaces rather than any significant engine changes. Kittinger apparently did his last work for Novag in the early 2000s and these programs (Citrine, Obsidian) do seem to have roots going back that far (Emerald Classic, etc).
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
SirDave
Full Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:59 am
Location: Southern California USA

Post by SirDave »

Jon, I think you may be on to something there. I don't see any other possibility than Kittinger as the main original programmer.
LWSteve
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:26 pm
Location: WA USA

Post by LWSteve »

MP,

My Citrine is only 2 years old.

Citrine came out in 2006.
Obsidian came out in 2005.

I believe that Star Diamond (2003) was Kittinger's last hurrah!
He took his millions and then retired after making SD.

Put yourself in Dave Kittinger's shoes.
If you stick around after making SD then you're going to make something
even stronger than Star Diamond next time around and make even more money!

Of course this didn't happen.

One thing about Citrine that a lot of people don't know...

If you put it on 3 min. avg. response ( square b8 ) it plays at an elo of about 2110

If you put it on tournament level 40/120 (square a7) then its elo is only around 2040 (this is what I have it on in my tournament)

That's because I think it takes more time then it is suppose to on ( square b8 ) level.

Other than that Citrine has a great simulated wood board with nice sounds and the 4 LED's per square are really nice!

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

Post by spacious_mind »

Citrine is very much a Kittinger. It has only the slightest deviations from Star Ruby and Obsidian.

Regards
Nick
LWSteve
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:26 pm
Location: WA USA

Post by LWSteve »

spacious_mind wrote:Citrine is very much a Kittinger. It has only the slightest deviations from Star Ruby and Obsidian.

Regards
When my tournament is over with... (because right now I don't have the time)

I will prove to you guys that Citrine was made after Kittinger left the building.

And that it was made by the Front Office Secretary the Grounds Keeper and the Janitor combined. :lol:

No Union Dues Required, Regards

LW
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

Hi Steve,

No one is disputing that the Citrine came well after Kittinger's contract with Novag expired. However this does not automatically mean it is not a Kittinger program. Saitek, for example, brought out a brand new machine (Maestro) two years after Craig Barnes's contract was up with Saitek, yet it has the Craig Barnes signature of solid, positional play (as do all the Barnes Saiteks).

I am of the opinion that all the 32K machines since the Kittinger era are still primarily Kittinger programs that may have had some relatively minor modifications. These may be changes to the timing code to allow for changes in clock speed, changes to suit newer hardware, changes to incorporate different level structures, etc. Professional software and hardware engineers could have contracted by Novag subsequent to the Kittinger era whose job it was to make these adaptions. But I would still bet if you could see the original source code, it would still bear the "signature" of Mr. Kittinger and may well still have his comments in it as well. Opening books are another story - they simply are not nearly as good as they were in the days when these machines had books carefully tailor-made for them. Infact they are pretty bad - I could have done a vastly better job myself.

But my belief is that the following were Kittinger's last programs:

4K: Granite and clones
16K Agate and clones
32K Emerald Classic and clones
Top-of-the-line: Star Diamond

I believe everything in their current range is based on those originals, modified by a third party as I have described above. The reason why the Citrine is 56K / 3K is simply due plartly to the very large opening book compared to 32K programs, plus the fact that the chip they use is sold to manufacturers in that configuration.

Also, why are you being so seemingly derogatory about a chess program that plays over 2000 ELO? That is still pretty strong by human standards. It is running on Mickey Mouse hardware compared to even the most modest PDA devices from a decade ago. So I think it does pretty well for itself considering.
Last edited by Monsieur Plastique on Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

LWSteve wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:Citrine is very much a Kittinger. It has only the slightest deviations from Star Ruby and Obsidian.

Regards
When my tournament is over with... (because right now I don't have the time)

I will prove to you guys that Citrine was made after Kittinger left the building.

And that it was made by the Front Office Secretary the Grounds Keeper and the Janitor combined. :lol:

No Union Dues Required, Regards

LW
Of course it was made a few years after he left the building. But it is still a Kittinger. I have shown enough examples I think even within a dedicated computer when you change its style that you get a different experience. A different person does not get credit for that. The slightest difference in Hardware will cause the odd move deviation as well. The same computer program played twice will quite often deviate by the odd move.
In test 1 the deviation was 3 moves and it played all the bad moves that Star Ruby played. Improvement to me = don't play the same bad moves.

I recall when Citrine first came out that there were plenty of tests done and it was hard to find the slightest of deviations. If you talk about deviations in Morsch, you are going to see even less in Citrine vs Star Ruby vs Obsidian.

ps Obsidian - Citrine = 2 move variations, all bad moves were repeated.

best regards,
Nick
LWSteve
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:26 pm
Location: WA USA

Post by LWSteve »

I am going to put this into simple English so everybody can understand...

Citrine and Obsidian, their playing style is completely different than the following Dave Kittinger programmed computers... (all of which I own)

Diamond
Diamond II
Star Diamond
Sapphire
Star Sapphire
Super Constellation
Super Forte 'C'
Super Forte 'B'
Constellation Forte

Hans and myself have already figured this out just by watching these
Novag computers play and by playing against them for all these years.

Citrine and Obsidian do not have 100% Dave Kittinger source code in them!

Can't you guys figure this out just by watching them play? OMG! :shock:

I wish Citrine was 100% Dave Kittinger and played like Diamond II or Super Forte 'C'

Because I have a Citrine also!

But it doesn't and it isn't and it never will! When are you guys going to get over it?

When Dave left Novag, new software engineers came in and made changes to their liking.

That's why Citrine and Obsidian... neither play like a Diamond or a Super Forte! Its that simple!

The new engineers that replaced Dave... They Ft' up up everything!

And I have found the proof on the internet that proves what I just stated is true.
But I'm not going to post it because I don't think it will do any good.

You guys are just going to keep on thinking that Citrine plays just like Super Connie! NOT!

Those new software engineers at Novag that replaced Dave... They screwed up Citrine!
And I posted why. (its in this thread)
And this upset a few people.
The Truth Hurts! See....

Citrine has more buttons than it has special features!

When Dave left the building he took his ball and bat with him and his source code also!

If Nick says Citrine is 100% Kittinger then you guys just follow him ok. sheeez :roll:

LW
SirDave
Full Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:59 am
Location: Southern California USA

Post by SirDave »

Steve, I don't think Jon is saying that it's a 100% Kittinger.
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

SirDave wrote:Steve, I don't think Jon is saying that it's a 100% Kittinger.
I think Steve is having far more trouble understanding my posts than I am his :wink:
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
User avatar
Monsieur Plastique
Senior Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:53 am
Location: On top of a hill in eastern Australia

Post by Monsieur Plastique »

LWSteve wrote:When Dave left the building he took his ball and bat with him and his source code also!
As someone who was a programmer for a living and worked around people who were contracted programmers and IT professionals, if that is the case (he took his work with him) then that the most unique and bizarre commercial arrangement I have ever heard of.

I have never, ever heard of any software-related contract where the company a given contractor works for does not have rights to the source code during the contracting period as well as after the contracting period has ended. It is a completely unworkable commercial arrangement, which is why it does not happen in my experience.

If this was the way the commercial IT world operated, then companies would fall into a heap left right and centre and the world would literally plunge into chaos. At worst, rights would still remain with the company but the programmer may have a shared right in certain situations and / or after a certain period of time expires. I think this sort of arrangement might have been the case with Richard Lang, for example, since he has (so I understand) licenced source code for the Revelation machines.

The whole point behind being a programmer is that you are providing an intellectual service to a company. The company is paying for that service. If after you leave, the company has to cease using every bit of intellectual property you created for them, then they have gotten nothing in return from you.

Kittinger's programs were developed over many years and they are the product of a vast amount of experience, ingenuity and sheer hard work. I do not believe for even one moment that Novag said to themselves, "let's start from afresh now Dave has moved on". Programmers in this sort of class - as history now tells us, are very few and far between. The programmers in the early days (of which Kittinger is one) had to have considerable expertise in working with marginal hardware, severe space limitations and needed to be able to work directly with primitive I/O interfaces. You just don't throw out those years of expertise when someone packs their bags, because the chances of economically improving on the base product they provided to you are next to nil. This is why you can still buy a Morsch program in a Mad Catz plastic toy 20 years after it was written.

So far as playing style is concerned, you do not need to make many changes to the source code to change the style of play of a chess program. Some very small changes can dramatically change the way a program plays, yet you might be changing the values in a few tables here and there for example.

I agree that the latest Novags do not play like the old ones, but in my experience, none of the changes in playing style are evidence that a completely new program was written, because there is a much simpler (and cheaper) reason that instead explains it.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
LWSteve
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:26 pm
Location: WA USA

Post by LWSteve »

When a Daschund and a Mexican Chihuahua have sex what is the final result?

Answer below...

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

Answer => You get a Citrine!
:)
Post Reply