Mind blowing moves made by the Star Opal

[Steve B]

In What can only be described as the greatest computer chess match this Decade..
After a grueling 4 Hour playing session the Scisys Mark VI snatches victory from the claws of defeat

As White The Star Opal won the first game launching a bizarre Trompowsky opening attack:
[Date "2010.01.02"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Novag Star Opal(24 Mhz.)"]
[Black "Scisys Mark VI"]
[Time Control "30 Sec"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A45"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Qb6 7.b3 e6 8.Nf3
cxd4 9.exd4 Bb4+ 10.c3 Be7 11.Bc4 O-O 12.O-O d6 13.Nxh4 Nc6 14.Qg4+ Kh8
15.Nd2 Rg8 16.Qh5 Ne5 17.Nhf3 Nxf3+ 18.Rxf3 f5 19.Rh3 Kg7 20.exf5 d5
21.Qxh7+ Kf8 1-0 *

[fen]r1b2kr1/pp2b2Q/1q2p3/3p1P2/2BP4/1PP4R/P2N2PP/R5K1 w - - 0 22[/fen]

the Mark VI resigns after only 21 moves
its hopeless after 22.f6


Game two has the Mark VI even the score with White

[Date "2010.01.02"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Scisys Mark VI"]
[Black "Novag Star Opal(24 Mhz.)"]
[Time Control "30 Sec"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A09"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 Nc6 4.exd4 Nxd4 5.Nxd4 Qxd4 6.Nc3 e5 7.d3 Nf6
8.Be3 Qd7 9.Be2 Be7 10.O-O O-O 11.Qd2 Rd8 12.c5 Qe6 13.Bf3 Nd7 14.Nd5
Rb8 15.Nxc7 Qf5 16.Nd5 Bf8 17.Qa5 b6 18.Qxa7 bxc5 19.Be4 Qe6 20.Bg5 Re8
21.Nc7 Qg4 22.Nxe8 Qxg5 23.b3 Qd2 24.Rad1 Qc2 25.Bc6 e4 26.dxe4 Rb4
27.Bxd7 Rxe4 28.f3 Re7 29.Nxg7 Kxg7 30.Qa4 Bxd7 31.Rxd7 Qc3 32.Qg4+ Kh8
33.Rxe7 Bxe7 34.Rd1 Qc2 35.Re1 f5 36.Qa4 Bf8 37.Qe8 Kg7 38.Qe5+ Kg6
39.Qh8 Kf7 40.Qxh7+ 1-0 *

[fen]5b2/5k1Q/8/2p2p2/8/1P3P2/P1q3PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 40[/fen]

Jon Resigned for the Star Opal here which is down the exchange and 3 Pawns

THE Game Three Tiebreaker
Ending the string of two wins for the white pieces.. the Mark VI with the Dark Pieces wins the third and final game..
[Date "2010.01.02"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Novag Star Opal(24 Mhz.)"]
[Black "Scisys Mark VI"]
[Time Control "30 Sec"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Bf5 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 e5 5.Nxc4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 e4
8.Qg5 Ne7 9.Nh4 Be6 10.Qxg7 Rg8 11.Qxh7 Bxc4 12.Qxe4 Nc6 13.e3 Bd5
14.Qh7 Qd7 15.Bb5 Bxg2 16.Nxg2 Rxg2 17.Bc4 Qf5 18.Qxf5 Nxf5 19.Kf1 Rg6
20.Rg1 O-O-O 21.Rxg6 fxg6 22.Be6+ Kb8 23.Rc1 Ng7 24.Bc4 Rh8 25.Kg2 Rh4
26.Bb5 Nb4 27.a3 Nd5 28.Bc4 Nf6 29.b4 Nf5 30.Rc3 Ne4 31.Rc1 c6 32.Bd3
Rg4+ 33.Kf3 Nf6 34.a4 Nh4+ 35.Ke2 Rg2 36.h3 Rh2 37.e4 Rxh3 38.Rg1 Nf3
39.Rg3 Nxd4+ 40.Ke3 Rxg3+ 41.fxg3 Ne6 42.Bc4 Ng4+ 43.Ke2 Ng5 44.Bd3 a6
45.Bc2 Kc7 46.Bd3 Ne5 47.Ke3 Ng4+ 48.Kf4 Nh3+ 49.Kf3 0-1 *
[fen]8/1pk5/p1p3p1/8/PP2P1n1/3B1KPn/8/8 w - - 0 49[/fen]

Mark VI is up a Knight
we were approcahing the fourth hour of playing and Jon resigned for the Star Opal which is down a piece

Game And Match Regards
Steve

[mclane]

here we can see IMO why this company died.
instead of producing a computer that is WORTH the money,
they made a computer that is only increasing their own profit.
so they really sold computers in modern times that were not stronger than units they produced in 1981. or 1983.

and when asked why they sell those weak machines, they come with
"90 % or 99% of all customers would lose against it" explanation.

we all know that this is an alibi sentence/explanation. even a STRONG dedicated chess computer can be REDUCED in playing strength via LEVEL settings.

the reason for these WEAK machines is to INCREASE their profit.

they produce them for 15 EURO and sell them for 99 or 150.
later these companies die and then they blame the customers or come with explanations that "THERE IS NO MARKET ANYMORE" or "only a few freaks would buy it" etc.

we all know that this is nonsense. if you look to ebay you see that there are (i do speak about german ebay.de) 150 dedicated chess computers.
the mass sold for much money. most interesting (strong) are even sold higher than they were sold at their time.

the companies tried to fool us with their weak machines.
now they are dead because nobody wanted to buy their
trash.

i tried to cinvince peter auges daughter that she should bring out
the 2robot with a better program.
at least 1800 or 1900 or better 2000 ELO.

THAT would have rescued the company. we would all have bought it.
and other serious chess players too.
nothing.

i tried to convince many others over years to produce strong dedicated chess computers.
look at ebay and see that the market is still there. what is NOT there are the companies. because they sold the same shit they always sold in different housing and with different names and colors.

fidelity with the excellence in designer outfit. but same excellence and par ex programs.

novag similar. and saitek similar with all the frans morsch clones in h8 cases.

[Monsieur Plastique]

The Star Opal actually surprised me a little in this brief encounter. I truly wasn't expecting it to win a single game, but it did all the right things to secure the win in the first encounter.

As for the other two games, when I tested the positions at 45 seconds per move, Star Opal made none of the blunders that marred it's play in the original games. I had always known this computer needs a lot of thinking time which was the reason for the change of crystal to begin with.

My feeling is that these two machines - were they to have a proper, long match - are roughly comparable in strength at faster time controls (<= one minute per move) but perhaps the 24 Mhz Star Opal might edge out slightly at slow tournament controls, though this would depend on the frequency of it's "inexplicable" blunders. Of course the only way to tell for sure is over a very long match carried out under very strict operating conditions. I have little doubt, however, that a stock Star Opal would be noticeably weaker against a Mark VI over the course of a formal match.

One thing I did note in the games was that the Mark VI was taking longer than the Star Opal to move in the openings (out of book), plus the middlegame, but sped up in the late middlegame and endgame. But in the second and third games, by then the Star Opal had lost positions.

In the first game, for example, total time - including operator time - used by the Mark VI was around 20 minutes and 30 seconds for 21 moves. In the second game, Mark VI took close to 46 minutes - including operator time - to make it's 40 moves. Obviously Steve would not have been trying to execute the moves in the same way one would under a strict, formal tournament test - nor was I for that matter - but notwithstanding this, the trend was as I noted above.

But Star Opal is still clearly a machine with a propensity to make ocassional bizarre moves - something which never effected any other mid-level (or better) program from Novag apart from the Dynamic "S" from around 1984 and , of course, the Star Opal's predecessors (though the Dynamic "S" was far, far worse than Star Opal in terms of blunders and oversights).

One thing that is clear is the Star Opal really needs to be used at the fixed time levels rather than the average time levels. My own experience suggests that this reduces the move randomisation in a given position by at least 50%, as well as reducing the possibility of poor moves because the computer takes a fraction of the time that it should.

Interestingly, there is actually not a whole lot of difference in timing between the fixed and variable levels in any case, since on the variable time levels, most of the time the deviation from the average time is not hugely significant. It's certainly not like the other Novags where a given move can take twice (or even more) the average time to make. The worst I have seen is maybe 30% more time on ocassions, but critically some moves are made in well under 50% of the average time, despite the fact that position really demands that the full time is used. And not surprisingly, these situations often marry up to where the Star Opal makes some of it's inexplicable blunders. There have been many positions I have tested where the Star Opal blunders on the variable time level, whilst not blundering on the comparable fixed time level.

It is clear that this 16K Star Opal program by necessity lacks the code sophistication found in other Novag 16K programs such as Primo and VIP. Afterall, the latter two programs have far smaller openings libraries (the Star Opal's being well over twice the size) and they also have much more RAM than Star Opal. Something had to give and I think these compromises relate more to chess knowledge and time allocation handling than they do pure tactical ability.

[Monsieur Plastique]

even a STRONG dedicated chess computer can be REDUCED in playing strength via LEVEL settings.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true, it is my opinion that even the next program up in Novag's range (Obsidian), when set at 5 seconds per move with easy mode on, would still be far too strong for any chess player except very serious hobby players and tournament players. It is still probably playing around the true 1650 - 1700 level at that speed. And the so-called "beginner" levels these machines (and PC programs) have are simply rediculous and un-useable for anyone except the most casual of players, with the blunders and oversights far too exaggerated and with extremely poor playing strength consistency.

That is why Novag ought to have ressurected the VIP program, since it would have offered a playing range of around 1400 ELO - 1680 ELO - precisely covering the range of skill at the low to mid range of serious club player or otherwise the serious hobby player. And it can do this without resorting to these silly handicap levels which don't provide a realistic chess playing experience. And the host machine would perhaps have been only a dollar or so more expensive to produce than the current 16K program, only because of the extra RAM required.

At the moment, we have a range from Novag that covers playing strengths from around 500 ELO to around 1400 ELO, and then from 1700 ELO to around 2000 ELO. There is a big gap missing from 1400 to 1700 ELO which is precisely where the bulk of lower to mid echelon club and serious chess players fit.

Novag are completely missing the target market.

[JMark]

Hello, I want to clarify the time controls you are talking about so we all have this straight. If your machine is overclocked the timer is also overclocked. So your 24mhz Opal set at 3 minutes per move is only going to be thinking for about one minute.

A stock unit at 30 seconds per move should play about the same or better then an overclocked 24mhz set to 30 seconds. To get true 30 seconds of thinking on the overclocked 24mhz you would need to set it to 90 seconds per move. A stock opal that is allowed 3x more time as the 24mhz should equal the same playing strength. Also, overclocking more then double the original processor speed can put the circuitry at some risk of failure/damage. Not a big worry on an inexpensive machine but something to consider. John

[Monsieur Plastique]

Hi John,

Yes, the timer does of course speed up as well, so the levels chosen were always three times as long as were the machine clocked at the standard 8 Mhz.

My feeling is that were an extended tournament time control match played of at least ten games, the Opal Turbo would get a slight plus score over a stock Mark VI.

That machine has been in it's turbocharged state for a very long time now, with no signs whatsoever of erratic behaviour or distress. Whilst I certainly would never have attempted this on a rare or expensive machine, I don't see it as a problem with such a cheap and unbiquitous machine. I would also never have attempted the modification if the computer had a display indicating elapsed time (or any other displays or user-interfacing functions that relied on time), since they would become meaningless. But the Star Opal is without a display and the only thing an operator needs to understand is to set it to levels three times as slow as that actually desired. With the abundance of available levels, this isn't a problem.

To answer another question of yours, in my opinion the Star Opal program is one that performs far better against other computers around a similar rating range than it does humans. It is nowhere near 1530 ELO against humans even at 24 Mhz - at least genuine 1530 ELO humans that have that rating certified by a professional chess body. It may well be 1530 USCF elo at 24 Mhz though, since US ratings have always been lower than European (FIDE) and Australian ratings for example.

I have played my fair share of genuinely rated mid 1500 human opponents in otb competition and I can tell you there is no comparison whatsevoer between the strength of the human and the 24 Mhz Star Opal - the humans feel at least a whole class stronger. I would probably estimate the Turbo Opal as around the high 1300s to mid 1400s against human opposition.

That said, my own computer versus computer tests shows that 1530 rating to be fairly accurate - which is a good reason to ignore computer versus computer ratings if one wants to know how strong a machine is against a human (this can work both ways of course - some being weaker and some being stronger). Some of those classic Mephistos for example, have quite lowly ratings these days but I suspect the stronger 32 bit ones would go better against expert humans today than their lowly ratings might suggest.

None of this is to take way the fact that the Star Opal is an entertaining program whose flaws can actually be an attraction given that these days we all have access to computer programs that for the most part (but not always!) play chess at a tactical level far beyond that of any human and have done for many years now. I would still love to see Novag introduce a better 16K program though, or even simply go back to the one used in the Primo.

[JMark]

Hello Monsieur Plastique,

Great information, thank you. I've enjoyed your extensive evaluation of this machine, and you make a good point about its flaw being an attraction to some people. To a lowly rated player as myself it might be refreshing to have that unexpected chance to win once in a while. I seem to have plenty of machines that behave like a terminator, out for the ruthless kill, especially some of the Mephiso machines.

I ordered the Star Opal but have not received it yet (just what I needed of course, another chess computer) I was attracted to the design, such a small computer having LEDS instead of an LCD. John

[JMark]

Hello, Seriously I doubt that there have been much 'profit' selling dedicated chess computers for many, many years. Even if they charged 300%.

These companies were more likely struggling to keep afloat then enjoying profits. Volume is the name of the game in business, changing markets eroded the consumer demand for dedicated machines, no matter what kind of machines were produced.

They designed some winners and some losers but I don't believe their intention was to 'fool' anyone. The activity you see on ebay is only a small niche market, not enough to keep a manufacturer in business.

I appreciate the machines that are still being sold, whatever they are. Sure, the glory days are over and what is available may be mostly leftovers from a bygone era but I'll take them, they play a great game of chess and we are lucky to have them, any of them. John

here we can see IMO why this company died.
instead of producing a computer that is WORTH the money,
they made a computer that is only increasing their own profit.
so they really sold computers in modern times that were not stronger than units they produced in 1981. or 1983.

and when asked why they sell those weak machines, they come with
"90 % or 99% of all customers would lose against it" explanation.

we all know that this is an alibi sentence/explanation. even a STRONG dedicated chess computer can be REDUCED in playing strength via LEVEL settings.

the reason for these WEAK machines is to INCREASE their profit.

they produce them for 15 EURO and sell them for 99 or 150.
later these companies die and then they blame the customers or come with explanations that "THERE IS NO MARKET ANYMORE" or "only a few freaks would buy it" etc.

we all know that this is nonsense. if you look to ebay you see that there are (i do speak about german ebay.de) 150 dedicated chess computers.
the mass sold for much money. most interesting (strong) are even sold higher than they were sold at their time.

the companies tried to fool us with their weak machines.
now they are dead because nobody wanted to buy their
trash.

i tried to cinvince peter auges daughter that she should bring out
the 2robot with a better program.
at least 1800 or 1900 or better 2000 ELO.

THAT would have rescued the company. we would all have bought it.
and other serious chess players too.
nothing.

i tried to convince many others over years to produce strong dedicated chess computers.
look at ebay and see that the market is still there. what is NOT there are the companies. because they sold the same shit they always sold in different housing and with different names and colors.

fidelity with the excellence in designer outfit. but same excellence and par ex programs.

novag similar. and saitek similar with all the frans morsch clones in h8 cases.

[SirDave]

I love the 'chess ergonomics' of the Star Opal-it's very well designed. My dream (portable) machine would be the Star Opal with Novag Amber or Sapphire II firmware.

Jon (M.Plastique), I can wield a soldering iron. Is the 'upgrade' to 24mhz difficult to do? Is it something you might be able to give some instructions on?

[spacious_mind]

I have played my fair share of genuinely rated mid 1500 human opponents in otb competition and I can tell you there is no comparison whatsevoer between the strength of the human and the 24 Mhz Star Opal - the humans feel at least a whole class stronger. I would probably estimate the Turbo Opal as around the high 1300s to mid 1400s against human opposition.

That said, my own computer versus computer tests shows that 1530 rating to be fairly accurate - which is a good reason to ignore computer versus computer ratings if one wants to know how strong a machine is against a human (this can work both ways of course - some being weaker and some being stronger). Some of those classic Mephistos for example, have quite lowly ratings these days but I suspect the stronger 32 bit ones would go better against expert humans today than their lowly ratings might suggest.

None of this is to take way the fact that the Star Opal is an entertaining program whose flaws can actually be an attraction given that these days we all have access to computer programs that for the most part (but not always!) play chess at a tactical level far beyond that of any human and have done for many years now. I would still love to see Novag introduce a better 16K program though, or even simply go back to the one used in the Primo.

I think that you are generally right for computers up to perhaps 1600/1700 ELO because these computers make too many errors especially in the Endgame.

But once you get above that Humans seem to have more difficulty if they are of the same ELO as a dedicated computer. MECA has played some great Human vs Computer Tournaments and the Humans have really struggled to win these matches:

TORNEO 15 agosto 2011 11:30 hr

Elo Human Players R
Chess Computers Elo
mf 2365 (SPA) Pedro López 0 1 Fidelity V-11 2341
mf 2210 (SPA) Carlos Carbonell 0 1 Mephisto Vancouver 68020 2211
-- 2085 (SPA) Víctor Penades 1 0 Saitek Advanced travel 2020
-- 1970 (IRL) Peter Lynch 0 1 Mephisto Milano Pro 2158
-- 1930 (SPA) José M Martí ½ ½ Saitek Kasparov Virtuoso 1972
-- 1969 (SPA) Eric Moya ½ ½ Fidelity Designer 2000 1827
-- 1805 (SPA) Miguel A López 0 1 Mephisto Europa A 1714
-- 1741 (SPA) Ariadna Vieito 0 1 Novag Primo 1724
2009 Humanos 2 - 6 Computadores 1996



TORNEO REYES 2011

120 min / game

Elo Players R
Novag Computers Elo
1 2261 Carlos Carbonell 1-0 Star Diamond 2129
2 2176 Vicente Calvo ½-½ Sapphire II 2112
3 2183 Leonardo Soliño 1-0 Turquoise 1940
4 2102 Víctor Penadés ½-½ Diablo 2005
5 2027 Ignasi Zaragoza 0-1 Super Expert C 6 1960
6 1870 Ernesto Pradas 0-1 Super Vip 1688

JUGADORES HUMANOS 3,0 - 3,0 COMPUTADORES NOVAG



TORNEO 15 agosto 2009 10:30 hr

Elo Human Players R
Mephisto Computers Elo
mf 2301 (GER) Milon Gupta ½ ½ Genius 68030 London 2298
mf 2203 (SPA) Carlos Carbonell 0 1 Risc II 2226
-- 2219 (SPA) Oscar Oliva 0 1 Berlin Pro 2225
-- 2175 (SPA) Víctor Penades ½ ½ Magellan 2196
-- 2115 (IRL) Gerad Marcelligot ½ ½ Almería 68020 2073
-- 1850 (ITA) Ricardo Gardi 1 0 Super Mondial 1819
2144 Humanos 2½-3½ Computadores 2140



TORNEO REYES 2009

120 min / game

Elo Players R
Computers Elo
1 2245 Carlos Carbonell 1-0 Saitek Risc 2500 2 Mb 2220
2 2185 Víctor Penadés 1-0 Mephisto MM-V 18 mhz HG550 2100
3 2155 Leonardo Soliño 0-1 Novag Ruby 1850
4 1900 Jose E. Yuste 1-0 Mephisto MM-IV 10 mhz 1850
5 2020 Álvaro Benlloch 0-1 RadioShack 2150 1800

HUMANOS 3,0 - 2,0 COMPUTADORES


TORNEO REYES 2008

Blitz 20 min

n Players Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL
1 Mephisto Berlin 68000 2.215 1 1 0,5 0 1 0,5 1 1 6,0
2 Victor Penades 2.193 0,5 1 1 0 1 1 0,5 0 5,0
3 Leonardo Soliño 2.185 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 5,0
4 Novag Diablo 68000 2.105 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5,0
5 Mephisto London 68000 2.230 1 0 0 1 1 0,5 0 1 4,5
6 Fidelity Mach III 68000 2.093 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4,0
7 Mephisto MM-V 18 mhz 2.150 0,5 0 0 0 0,5 0 1 1 3,0
8 Carlos Carbonell 2.258 0 0 0 0,5 1 0 0 1 2,5
9 Mephisto Dallas 68000 2.071 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,0



TORNEO MASTERS 28 julio 2007 10:00 hr



Elo Players R
Computers Elo
gm 2514 Alexis Cabrera 1-0 Tasc R-30 2370
mi 2387 Mauricio Vasallo 1-0 Saitek Kasparov Sparc 2223
mi 2370 Carlos García ½-½ Mephisto Lyon 32b 2210
mi 2364 Kovacevic Slobodan 1-0 Mephisto Montreux 2196
mf 2250 Carlos Carbonell ½-½ Novag Sapphire II 2112

Humanos 4-1 Computadores


TORNEO CLUB 28 julio 2007 16:00 hr



Elo Players R
Computers Elo
-- 2176 Leonardo Soliño ½-½ Fidelity Mach IV 2074
-- 2157 Víctor Penadés 1-0 Sphinx Dominator 1900
-- 1953 José Peñarrubia 0-1 Mephisto Phantom 1835
-- 1850 Ramón García 0-1 Mephisto Rebell 1824
-- 1800 Francesc López ½-½ Novag Super Vip 1790

Humanos 2-3 Computadores



XII TORNEO HOMBRE vs COMPUTADOR. REYES 2007.

<<RESULTADOS>>

MASTERS

M t ELO JUGADOR R ELO COMPUTADOR

1 GM 2.520 Yulen Arizmendi (Valencia) 0 1 2.500 Resurrection Toga 2
2 MI 2.372 Carlos García (Valencia) 1/2 1/2 2.370 Tasc R.30
3 MF 2.339 Ramón Ibáñez (Valencia) 1 0 2.316 Mephisto London
4 -- 2.283 Pedro López (Valencia) 0 1 2.196 Mephisto Magellan
5 MF 2.205 Carlos Carbonell (Valencia) 1 0 2.130 Novag Star Diamond

Humanos 2,5 2,5 Computadores

CLUB

M t ELO JUGADOR R ELO COMPUTADOR

1 -- 2.190 Víctor Penadés (Valencia) 0 1 2.070 Mephisto Senator
2 -- 2.185 Leonardo Soliño (Valencia) 0 1 2.050 Novag Citrine
3 -- 1.912 Ramón García (Valencia) 1 0 1.902 Mephisto MM-IV
4 -- 1.887 Vicente Adsuara (Valencia) 1 0 1.850 Fidelity 2100 d
5 -- 1.875 Francésc López (Reus) 0 1 1.830 Saitek TurboKing

Humanos 2,0 3,0 Computadores


XI TORNEO HOMBRE vs COMPUTADOR. REYES 2.006

Round 1: "Nueva Época" ritmo 2h

Elo Players R Computers Elo
1 2210 Víctor Penadés 0-1 Mephisto Genius 68030 2298
2 2200 Mephisto Risk 1mb 0-1 Leonardo Soliño 2074
3 2174 Carlos Carbonell ½-½ Mephisto Milano Pro 2070
4 2020 Novag Diablo 1-0 Ramón García 1900
5 2118 Emilio Checa ½-½ Saitek Cougar 1993
6 1975 Mephisto MM5 HG550 1-0 Ramón García 1900
7 1890 Saitek Galileo AnalystD ½-½ Francesc López 1800
8 1770 Mephisto MM2 HG240 1-0 Jose E. Yuste 1800

R1: HUMANOS 2,5 - 5,5 COMPUTADORES

Round 2: "Los Clásicos" ritmo 2h

Elo Players R Computers Elo
1 1800 Fidelity Elite Glasgow 0-1 Víctor Penadés 2210
2 2074 Leonardo Soliño 1-0 Fidelity Elrgance 1760
3 1950 Vicente Adsura 0-1 Mephisto S 1650
4 1680 Mephisto B&P 1-0 Ramón García 1900
5 2000 Alvaro Benlloch 1-0 Fidelity Chess Challenger 6 1600
6 1730 Novag Super Constellation 1-0 Jose E. Yuste 1800
7 1800 Francesc López 1-0 CXG 2001 1500
8 1350 Mephisto II ESB3000 0-1 Ramón García 1900

R2: HUMANOS 4,0 - 4,0 COMPUTADORES

TOTAL: HUMANOS 6,5 - 9,5 COMPUTADORES

There must be a typo somewhere here unless my eyes deceive me. I see the 4-4 score as a 5-3 win for the Humans.

IX TORNEO HOMBRE vs COMPUTADOR. REYES 2.002


Elo Players R Computers Elo
2100 Victor Penadés 0-1 Mephisto Risk 2 2227
2125 Mephisto Almería 68020 0-1 Leonardo Soliño 2000
2000 Vicente Adsuara 0-1 Novag Scorpio 2028
2000 Mephisto Dallas 68020 ½-½ Luis Barona 2052
1900 Manuel Contreras 0-1 CXG Galaxy 1893
1787 Mephisto MM-II HG240 1-0 Alberto Avinent 1800
1800 Andrés Benito 0-1 Scisys Turbostar 432 1788
1700 Fidelity Playmatic S 1-0 Pilar Mateo 1600

HUMANOS 2,5 - 5,5 COMPUTADORES

Unfortunately MECA does not show the 2003, 2004 and 2005 results but I think there are plenty of examples here that show that the Humans actually fare worse against chess computers of a similar playing strength.

This kind of proves that a 2000 Elo chess computer will at least until the 2000 ELO human figures out how to beat it, give the human a good run for his money. And the same based on the above results probably also applies from around 1800 upwards. (So long as the human does not cheat and use the take-back function all the time )

There are just too many examples above under Tournament settings that show any theory or statement that a human player is better at the same rating as the computer as wrong and a myth.

http://www.meca-web.es/torneos.htm

Best regards,

Nick

[Steve B]

Always amazes me how on an Internet forum a conversation can pick right up where it left off..even after two full years in between
i wish i could just turn back the clock like that..only i would turn it back 20 years..not 2


I do like the feel of the SO ..nice and compact
my one gripe is it does need a cover like the Mephisto Miami
a portable travel chess computer really ought to come with a cover and not just a plastic bag even if it is not a peg-sensory
(The Opal ,Opal II and Opal Plus also did not have covers)
although the slide out compartment in the back of the unit to hold the pieces is a nice touch

Anyway..with all of the renewed interest in the Little Star Opal .. even after the shellacking it took at the hands of the Mark VI..
I Gave it a second chance and pit it against the Fidelity EAG V5
To compensate for the rating difference i set the SO at 1 Min per move Avg..and the V5 at Game 5
in a normal 40 move game that it is an 8X time advantage for the SO
i also disabled pondering for the V5 as the SO does not ponder

SO had white and was in book through 7 moves
The game was a tour-de-force by the V5 quickly winning 2 pawns
Caution..the following game depicts scenes of graphic violence ..children should be accompanied by an adult

[Date "2011.9.29"]
[White "Novag Star Opal"]
[Black "Fidelity EAG V5"]
[Time Control "EAG(5Min/Game)-SO(1 Min.Avg.)]
[Result "0-1]

1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.e4 Nf6 6.Nge2 O-O 7.O-O d6 8.d4
cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Ng4 11.Qd5 Be6 12.Qb5 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qc8 14.c5 a6
15.Qb6 Qxc5 16.Qxc5 dxc5 17.Rb1 b5 18.Bg5 f6 19.Be3 Bxa2 20.Rbd1 Nxe3
21.fxe3 Rad8 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Ra1 Rd2 24.Bf3 b4 25.cxb4 cxb4 26.Rc1 f5
27.Rc6 a5 28.exf5 gxf5 29.h4 b3 30.Rc8+ Kg7 31.Kf1 b2 32.Ke1 Rd3 33.Rb8
Bb3 34.Rxb3 Rxb3 35.Kf2 b1=Q 36.Be2 Rb2 37.Kf3 Qe4+ 38.Kf2 *

FINAL POSITION


[fen]8/4p1kp/8/p4p2/4q2P/4P1P1/1r2BK2/8 w - - 0 38[/fen]

V5 announces a mate in 3 here

Cute But Coverless Regards
Steve

[SirDave]

Steve, you're right about the fact that the SO should have had a cover, but Novag did a good job of providing particularly strong piece magnets which helps to keep things stable when on the move. For travel, I stick my SO in a small square plastic container such as those made for food storage (made by Sterilite, Rubbermaid etc.).

I'm surprised that Saitek and/or Excalibur never came out with a direct competitor to the SO design ie. small board with free-standing pieces. Still, I'm even more surprised that Novag never upgraded the SO firmware.

[Steve B]

Steve, you're right about the fact that the SO should have had a cover, but Novag did a good job of providing particularly strong piece magnets which helps to keep things stable when on the move. For travel, I stick my SO in a small square plastic container such as those made for food storage (made by Sterilite, Rubbermaid etc.).

I'm surprised that Saitek and/or Excalibur never came out with a direct competitor to the SO design ie. small board with free-standing pieces. Still, I'm even more surprised that Novag never upgraded the SO firmware.

Actually if you think about it Dave
the Opal series were one of the very few portables with a touch-sensory board..so thats a definite feather in its little cap
most portables are peg sensory as you well know
the Fidelity Travel Master was another touch sensory portable that leaps to mind but we all know what a technological disaster that was

speaking of the TM...
here is one currently on Ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Electronic ... 0824390955

Defective Of Course Regards
Steve

[SirDave]

Steve, you're right about the fact that the SO should have had a cover, but Novag did a good job of providing particularly strong piece magnets which helps to keep things stable when on the move. For travel, I stick my SO in a small square plastic container such as those made for food storage (made by Sterilite, Rubbermaid etc.).

I'm surprised that Saitek and/or Excalibur never came out with a direct competitor to the SO design ie. small board with free-standing pieces. Still, I'm even more surprised that Novag never upgraded the SO firmware.

Actually if you think about it Dave
the Opal series were one of the very few portables with a touch-sensory board..so thats a definite feather in its little cap
most portables are peg sensory as you well know
the Fidelity Travel Master was another touch sensory portable that leaps to mind but we all know what a technological disaster that was

speaking of the TM...
here is one currently on Ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Electronic ... 0824390955

Defective Of Course Regards
Steve

I often get a kick out of the descriptions given such as for the Travel-Master in question:

This unit does power on but does have some squares that do not register. Some do, some don't. We don't really know how to play this or start a game, so perhaps we are doing something wrong or in the wrong order.

My first thought when reading this is that even if one didn't have the problem described in the 2nd sentence, one would find it difficult to proceed due to the problem described in the first sentence...

Get your magnifying glass and itty-bitty soldering iron out and fix the teeny-weeny ribbon cable wires regards,
Dave

[Steve B]

I Gave the Star Opal one last chance to strut its stuff(if any)
i gave it white again against the V5 with both computers being set
for a fixed 5 ply search which eliminates any hardware disparity issues
Pondering OFF for the V5
a pure..mano y mano ..engine vs engine .Spracklen vs Kittinger match

a photo of the pugilists:


In the opening and middlegame The V5 reached 5 ply in about 25-30
sec. on average.. while the SO's times varied wildly from as little
as 30 seconds to as high as 4 Minutes with the avg being about 2
Minutes(this does seem to suggest that some sort of internal pondering is
taking place on the SO's part but it never replied instantly even on
obvious recaptures)
in the endgame the move times reduced radically for the SO with the
AVG being about 45 Sec and for the V5 about 15 Sec

In The game, Interestingly ,the V5 was first to leave book at move
2!
once again the V5 wins 2 pawns early on and the game looked like it
would be Deja Vu all over again ..however here the SO offers more
resistance and wins back a pawn..all to no avail as the V5 is able
to advance its passed kingside pawns and bring home yet another win

[Date "2011.9.30"]
[White "Novag Star Opal"]
[Black "Fidelity EAG V5"]
[Time Control "Fixed 5 Ply"]
[Result "0-1"]


1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ 3.Bd2 Na6 4.Bxb4 Nxb4 5.Qd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 d5 7.cxd5 exd5
8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qe3+ Ne7 10.Qe5 O-O 11.Nb5 c6 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Qg5 h6 14.Qd2
Bf5 15.O-O-O Qd6 16.e3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.Qa5 Bg4 19.h3 b6 20.Qe1 Bh5
21.g4 Bxg4 22.hxg4 exf3 23.Rh3 Qd5 24.e4 Qxa2 25.Rxf3 Rfe8 26.Qb4 Rxe4
27.Bc4 a5 28.Bxa2 axb4 29.Bxf7+ Kh7 30.Rfd3 Rxg4 31.Rg3 Rxg3 32.fxg3 Ne7
33.g4 g6 34.Kc2 Kg7 35.Be6 Rf8 36.Kd3 h5 37.g5 Rf2 38.b3 Kh8 39.Ra1 Rf3+
40.Ke4 Rf8 41.Ra6 Rf2 42.Ke3 Rf1 43.Ke2 Rg1 44.Rxb6 Rxg5 45.Rxb4 Kg7
46.Ra4 Kf6 47.Bc4 Rg4 48.Bd3 Rf4 49.Rc4 g5 50.Ke3 h4 51.Be4 Nd5+ 52.Kd3
Ke7 53.Rc1 Kd6 54.Re1 g4 55.Kc4 h3 56.b4 g3 57.Bd3 h2 58.Bf5 Rxf5 59.b5
g2 60.Re5 g1=Q *

FINAL POSITION

[fen]8/8/2pk4/1P1nRr2/2KP4/8/7p/6q1 w - - 0 61[/fen]
I resigned for the SO here..its hopeless

Not Quite Ready For Prime Time Regards
Steve