Mephisto Atlanta on ebay

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
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

Steve B wrote:Hi Larry and Paul

its not just the speed
its also the search and evaluation program

Sapphire is Kittinger
Hiarcs is of course is our fearless leader Mark Uniacke

Atlanta is Morsch

will shall see regards
Steve
PS...now please ..no one post a time for Fritz
:P
I should tell you now Steve, there isn't a PC, let alone a dedicated unit able to see the win, even after Qxe5!!..fe Rf1!

Too Subtle a Win Regards,
Terry
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Larry wrote: I'd take this rating list with a grain of salt. Prepared by anonymous
people who can't be trusted. Look at the Super Connie...1540! and
below the Chess Challenger '8'. Super
Forte C... 1666. The London Pro a full 180 points below the Berlin Pro.
regards
Larry
You obviosuly didnt read what i wrote about this list. These are the match results based on WM Online 1, 2 and 3 only. 30 seconds/move. Each machine played by one operator (different to you playing your machines alone at home) So your comments about the lack of trust in the operators is confusing to me since most of the operators are well known and experienced dedicated chess computer enthusiasts, who visit this forum and other forums regularly fo rmany years.

Now your comment about not taking the ELO seriosuly is valid because many of the machines do not have enough games. As for result accuracy though you would be incorrect since I would have more trust in 2 player matches then in you operating both machines yourself at home.

Btw all these games are available for replaying whereas I do not see that luxury in many other lists which you may consider more accurate.

The proof is in the pudding best
Nick
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Post by Larry »

spacious_mind wrote:
Larry wrote: I'd take this rating list with a grain of salt. Prepared by anonymous
people who can't be trusted. Look at the Super Connie...1540! and
below the Chess Challenger '8'. Super
Forte C... 1666. The London Pro a full 180 points below the Berlin Pro.
regards
Larry
You obviosuly didnt read what i wrote about this list. These are the match results based on WM Online 1, 2 and 3 only. 30 seconds/move. Each machine played by one operator (different to you playing your machines alone at home) So your comments about the lack of trust in the operators is confusing to me since most of the operators are well known and experienced dedicated chess computer enthusiasts, who visit this forum and other forums regularly fo rmany years.

Now your comment about not taking the ELO seriosuly is valid because many of the machines do not have enough games. As for result accuracy though you would be incorrect since I would have more trust in 2 player matches then in you operating both machines yourself at home.

Btw all these games are available for replaying whereas I do not see that luxury in many other lists which you may consider more accurate.

Hi Nick, hope you're having a nice day!
Ok, I'm convinced the SuperConnie is officially weaker than the Fidelity
'8' level.

There is something I noticed when playing dedicated chess computers
against each other at fast time controls. The operator speed weighs
heavily on the comp's performance. If you play two comps against each
other, and to avoid time in resetting the pieces after the game by only
putting pieces on one board and playing the other comp as a bare board,
the bare board comp gets a distinct advantage. That's because it's much
quicker to press the empty squares than it is to physically press and
move a piece. So the bare board comp gets more thinking time.
When I said the operators can't be trusted, I was'nt suggesting they
were dishonest. I mean some are probably faster and more competent
than others, and have faster/slower internet connections.
I also have to concede that the Wiki ratings are for long time controls,
when in fact the vast majority of games are played quickly, when the
relative strengths are quite different.
all the best
Larry
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Larry wrote:
Hi Nick, hope you're having a nice day!
Ok, I'm convinced the SuperConnie is officially weaker than the Fidelity
'8' level.

There is something I noticed when playing dedicated chess computers
against each other at fast time controls. The operator speed weighs
heavily on the comp's performance. If you play two comps against each
other, and to avoid time in resetting the pieces after the game by only
putting pieces on one board and playing the other comp as a bare board,
the bare board comp gets a distinct advantage. That's because it's much
quicker to press the empty squares than it is to physically press and
move a piece. So the bare board comp gets more thinking time.
When I said the operators can't be trusted, I was'nt suggesting they
were dishonest. I mean some are probably faster and more competent
than others, and have faster/slower internet connections.
I also have to concede that the Wiki ratings are for long time controls,
when in fact the vast majority of games are played quickly, when the
relative strengths are quite different.
all the best
Larry
Hi Larry:
I am sorry but I still do not know how to interpret your first line other than with a hint of sarcasm from you. Of course the CC8 is not stronger and the Elostat stats I gave do not indicate that at all:

57 Chess Challenger 8, Fidelity : 1550 0 0 6 0.0 % 2150 0.0 %

Chess Challenger 8, Fidelity : 6 (+ 0,= 0,- 6), 0.0 %

Star Sapphire, Novag : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Atlanta, Mephisto : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Sapphire, Novag : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Genius 68030, Mephisto : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Decorator, Fidelity : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Mach III, Fidelity : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %

This tells you that CC8 played 6 games. The first two zeros mean that there are not enough games played otherwise there would be a plus and a minus tolerance. The 0.0 % also tells you that it lost all 6 games. So i do not understand how you can seriously interpret the ELO at all. The ELO is still too high for the CC8 because it played too few games and the average Opponent it played was ELO 2150. So I don't even know why you are even trying to interpret the CC8 ELO differntly to what is provided above. FYI the Wiki is also too high at 1300 for a CC8 at best it would be around 1100 -1200 no more. Wiki only has reasonably accurate ELO's for machines over @ 1500 since Wiki took most of the info from SSDF and SSDF stopped rating machines at around 1550.

The same applies for the Super Constellation which has only 13 games which is still not enough for it to be considered seriously in my example world since its opponents are also rated too high as well. But still Elostat provided a good plus tolerance for the Super Conny based on the game data provided. Tolerance +320 - 41 Av opponent 2099.

58 Super Constellation, Novag : 1540 320 41 13 3.8 % 2099 7.7 %

Super Constellation, Novag : 13 (+ 0,= 1,- 12), 3.8 %

Kasparov GK 2100, Saitek : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Mach IV, Fidelity : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
MM V, Mephisto : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
R30 V2.5, TASC. : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Grandmaster, Excalibur : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Risc 1MB, Mephisto : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %
Lyon 68020 22 MHz, Mephisto : 2 (+ 0,= 0,- 2), 0.0 %
ChessMachine 3.1 32 MHz, TASC.: 2 (+ 0,= 1,- 1), 25.0 %
Polgar, Mephisto : 2 (+ 0,= 0,- 2), 0.0 %
Star Sapphire, Novag : 1 (+ 0,= 0,- 1), 0.0 %

As I said before in order to have good ratings you have to have enough games (at least 25-30 against at least 6 different opponents within the machines class for starters)

I know one thing in order to play in an Online World Championship, I am focusing on 1 machine that I know and therefore it is for sure that I have it set for its strongest setting because that is all I am playing with. This is why I trust a 2 player match in a World Championship to give me a best possible result for the machine. Since all these games are available I can review the games and opponents for accuracy and make a good judgment also. I do not have access to games from other lists therefore I do not know if a machine played 200 games against 1 opponent or if it played against 20 so I cannot say if the other lists are more accurate or not. I also do not know if the machine was set at its strongest level or not. Perhaps it is a mixture of Brute force and selective who knows. I do however believe that in 2hrs / 40 SSDF ratings are very good because they have high criterias that they work with.

Also bear in mind that my example has a closed world of only 3 online tournaments played at 30 sec/move. However the accuracy of the results are not in question here (I hope) these games are available for you to play back and check with your machines.

Now if you take Atlanta which by the way was the whole point of my example world to praise it's successes against other top machines who also played lots of games. And was intended to show it's live - online tournament results which also is not in dispute I hope?

Atlanta, Mephisto : 2310 70 68 81 61.7 % 2227 22.2 %

Atlanta, Mephisto : 81 (+ 41,= 18,- 22), 61.7 %

Mach III, Fidelity : 2 (+ 2,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Star Sapphire, Novag : 2 (+ 2,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Chess Challenger 8, Fidelity : 1 (+ 1,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Sapphire, Novag : 3 (+ 0,= 2,- 1), 33.3 %
Genius 68030, Mephisto : 1 (+ 0,= 1,- 0), 50.0 %
Decorator, Fidelity : 1 (+ 1,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Super Forte C (7 MHz), Novag : 3 (+ 3,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Berlin Pro, Mephisto : 5 (+ 0,= 2,- 3), 20.0 %
London 68030, Mephisto : 1 (+ 1,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Lyon 68020 22 MHz, Mephisto : 7 (+ 2,= 4,- 1), 57.1 %
Kasparov GK 2100, Saitek : 1 (+ 1,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Turboking II, Saitek : 1 (+ 1,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Elite 68060 V11, Fidelity : 11 (+ 3,= 3,- 5), 40.9 %
Mach IV, Fidelity : 4 (+ 4,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
R30 V2.2, TASC. : 10 (+ 5,= 2,- 3), 60.0 %
Resurrection Ruffian,Phoenix : 8 (+ 2,= 2,- 4), 37.5 %
Brute Force, Saitek : 2 (+ 2,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Milano, Mephisto : 2 (+ 2,= 0,- 0), 100.0 %
Resurrection Deep Sjeng,Phoenix: 2 (+ 1,= 0,- 1), 50.0 %
Milano Pro, Mephisto : 8 (+ 4,= 2,- 2), 62.5 %
RISC 2500, Saitek : 6 (+ 4,= 0,- 2), 66.7 %

The 2310 ELO admittedly is higher than Schachinfo which shows it at 2249 after 439 games Atlanta/Magellan.

But with a tolerance of +70/-68 it still looks to be within acceptable limits and the above opponents from the 3 online WM's also speak for themselves.

All the best
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

hi Nick

just to add a few thoughts

to call these online matches "World Championships" is a bit much.. dont you think?

after all ..these are just online tournaments .. that have just been setup by the .info guys which can hardly be called an official world championship
aside from yourself i bet that perhaps 95% of the players in these"championships" are German collectors/players.perhaps even more then 95%..and who probably all live within driving distance of each other

i realize that anyone is welcomed to play in them but that hardly makes them World Championships.
they are simply online tournaments nothing more..nothing less

secondly...all of this talk about the WIKI\.INFO ratings is also a bit over done in my opinion

Hallsworth has been maintaining his Selective Search lists for the dedicated computers since 1985 and publishing those lists since then

there are literally hundreds of thousands of games used in establishing these lists..and these lists coincide dramatically with the SSDF lists and his lists were started even before the SSDF lists

now i am not affiliated with Hallsworth in any way(even though i am a mod here for which i am paid nothing of course)

i imagine overtime the Wiki /info lists will agree to his lists once they get in enough games..which will probably take many more years

it seems that the info/wiki guys just would like to ignore the existence of the Selective Search lists and go along their merry way ..reinventing the wheel so to speak

my bet is that the .info guys did not even know that the SS lists existed when they created their site about 4-5 years or so ago(but i could be wrong about that)

another very reliable source for ratings were the lists maintained by Computer Chess Reports (ICD) between the mid 1980's-mid 1990's
the SS lists and the CCR lists also both coincided nicely..and each of these lists would recognize and refer to each other from time to time



this is not to say that it is not interesting to see the .wiki/info lists as they grow more accurate over time as more and more games are added to them
but at the end of the day these lists will only agree to the SS/CCR/SSDF lists so i am not so sure what the point of the exercise is

whenever i want to know the rating for a dedicated computer i consult the following sources in this order:

Selective Search lists(United Kingdom)
SSDF Lists(Sweden)
Rating lists maintained by CCR from the mid 1980's to the mid 1990's..(USA)
Wiki\.Info(basically Germany)

please don't get me wrong..i am not criticizing the .info /wiki rating efforts..i am only suggesting to you that basically.. as far as i am concerned(and i know others feel the same as i do) ..it has all been done before..and many many years before ..at that


My Best
Steve
User avatar
Jose
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:21 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Jose »

Hi Steve,
Steve B wrote:hi Nick

just to add a few thoughts

to call these online matches "World Championships" is a bit much.. dont you think?
it is just a word! Not more not less :wink: And if you see all chess computers play each other which was produced all over the world...perhaps the name is quite good! However for me it is not important if it called "Small Looser Tournament" or "Biggest World Championship" - important is that i have fun, learn new things :D
Steve B wrote: secondly...all of this talk about the WIKI\.INFO ratings is also a bit over done in my opinion

Hallsworth has been maintaining his Selective Search lists for the dedicated computers since 1985 and publishing those lists since then
Where can i find this List from Eric? On his page i do not found that point in his navigation. perhaps is here the problem, that his list is best hidden!
But i think it is on a good way. In some years if more and more games and players work together - perhaps the Wiki-ratings become better and better. The good thing is, that all can help for better growing.
And not all speak/read English well, like me, and perhaps then all will look on a german speaken website with Ratings?! :wink:
It´s a good project i think.
Steve B wrote: my bet is that the .info guys did not even know that the SS lists existed when they created their site about 4-5 years or so ago(but i could be wrong about that)
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps some knows and some not. It is a community, all help, all work for one Target! They have fun, so it is okay!
Steve B wrote: please don't get me wrong..i am not criticizing the .info /wiki rating efforts..i am only suggesting to you that basically.. as far as i am concerned(and i know others feel the same as i do) ..it has all been done before..and many many years before ..at that
the .info guys also often discuss all points you describe, that´s normal! Every human has a own opinion, like you. But i see all easy 8) I want to have fun and want to learn, that i can do on .info or at .at or at .fr and many other websites worldwide. :D

Never ending learning Regards
José
Larry
Senior Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Gosford, NSW Australia

Post by Larry »

"hint of sarcasm from you."
Yes, but only in fun :D
Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the Morsch programs, like the
Kittinger programs, give the bulk of their strength on the quick levels.
I'm on the lookout for an Atlanta because, let's face it, most casual chess
is played on the fast settings, in which Atlanta go head to head with the best
of them. I'll get one, just got to wait.
Until then, I just now got my Mephisto Modular with the Polgar module.
Bought it as a bare board so, since it's an auto sensory, I'm having to use
my Fidelity Elegance pieces with it. And I had to print out an owner's
manual from Alain's Zanchetta's site. The Polgar is an Ed Shroeder program,
so I"m looking forward to checking out it's style.
all the best
Larry
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

Jose wrote:Hi Steve,
Steve B wrote:hi Nick

just to add a few thoughts

to call these online matches "World Championships" is a bit much.. dont you think?
it is just a word! Not more not less :wink: And if you see all chess computers play each other which was produced all over the world...perhaps the name is quite good! However for me it is not important if it called "Small Looser Tournament" or "Biggest World Championship" - important is that i have fun, learn new things :D
Steve B wrote: secondly...all of this talk about the WIKI\.INFO ratings is also a bit over done in my opinion

Hallsworth has been maintaining his Selective Search lists for the dedicated computers since 1985 and publishing those lists since then
Where can i find this List from Eric? On his page i do not found that point in his navigation. perhaps is here the problem, that his list is best hidden!
But i think it is on a good way. In some years if more and more games and players work together - perhaps the Wiki-ratings become better and better. The good thing is, that all can help for better growing.
And not all speak/read English well, like me, and perhaps then all will look on a german speaken website with Ratings?! :wink:
It´s a good project i think.
Steve B wrote: my bet is that the .info guys did not even know that the SS lists existed when they created their site about 4-5 years or so ago(but i could be wrong about that)
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps some knows and some not. It is a community, all help, all work for one Target! They have fun, so it is okay!
Steve B wrote: please don't get me wrong..i am not criticizing the .info /wiki rating efforts..i am only suggesting to you that basically.. as far as i am concerned(and i know others feel the same as i do) ..it has all been done before..and many many years before ..at that
the .info guys also often discuss all points you describe, that´s normal! Every human has a own opinion, like you. But i see all easy 8) I want to have fun and want to learn, that i can do on .info or at .at or at .fr and many other websites worldwide. :D

Never ending learning Regards
José
hi Jose

the Selective Search lists are not hidden of course
they are published with each and every issue of Selective Search Magazine

you should take out a subscription and you will see the lists
:wink:

i agree "World" is just a word...
so i think the better word would be..
.INFO Online Championships
:P

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

Post by spacious_mind »

Larry wrote:"hint of sarcasm from you."
Yes, but only in fun :D
Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the Morsch programs, like the
Kittinger programs, give the bulk of their strength on the quick levels.
I'm on the lookout for an Atlanta because, let's face it, most casual chess
is played on the fast settings, in which Atlanta go head to head with the best
of them. I'll get one, just got to wait.
Until then, I just now got my Mephisto Modular with the Polgar module.
Bought it as a bare board so, since it's an auto sensory, I'm having to use
my Fidelity Elegance pieces with it. And I had to print out an owner's
manual from Alain's Zanchetta's site. The Polgar is an Ed Shroeder program,
so I"m looking forward to checking out it's style.
all the best
Larry
Hi Larry
Yes an Atlanta should not disappoint you. BTW... I love discussions and good stuff like that. I like to fight my cause but I learn from others :D
So I am happy if you don't take me too seriously.

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

Post by spacious_mind »

hi Nick

just to add a few thoughts

to call these online matches "World Championships" is a bit much.. dont you think?

after all ..these are just online tournaments .. that have just been setup by the .info guys which can hardly be called an official world championship
aside from yourself i bet that perhaps 95% of the players in these"championships" are German collectors/players.perhaps even more then 95%..and who probably all live within driving distance of each other

i realize that anyone is welcomed to play in them but that hardly makes them World Championships.
they are simply online tournaments nothing more..nothing less

secondly...all of this talk about the WIKI\.INFO ratings is also a bit over done in my opinion
Hi Steve

Thanks for your observations. My response to your comments are my opinions only and not anyone else. But I do have strong feeling towards this topic and here they are:

I know from the Schachinfo Administrator himself that he does not take the title seriously and he was also surprised how successful the tournament has become and how people reacted to it.

But I am sure people like Ruud Martin don't mind it being called just that. After all this actually gives him and future others the opportunity to show what his/their creations are made of also especially since everyone else has stopped doing any kinds of tournaments.

Personally I am very happy that the tournament is named as it is, mainly because this title has now been taken away from any would be entrepreneurs to use for financial gain and is now owned by the people of the world, the dedicated chess enthusiasts.

It is not the fault of Schachinfo/Wiki that it is written in German. The Wiki chess information is available for everyone in the world for free. In other words it costs you nada, zilch, nothing to obtain. Other dedicated chess enthusiasts freely share information here. It is a living project and if anyone detects errors or mistakes then I can say that I am very surprised that these are not transmitted to the site per e-mail or something so that this can be looked at or corrected. It is a free site for the masses why not support it by helping out?

It is also not the fault of the Administrator of Wiki that he does not have perfect English skills. If he had these then he would have I am sure made Wiki and Schachinfo in both languages. In fact he welcomes any volunteers from any country and language to support this effort. Wiki chess has no commercial agendas, which unfortunately does not seem to be the case with other Wiki sites. These are now used for commercial gain from the links provided within these sites.

I don't know if you have noticed but both sites are 100% free of advertising or links towards other sites that sell products. It is paid for 100% out of the Administrator’s pocket because of the love he has for the hobby. There are no hidden agendas.

So now back to the topic of ELO. I do not think that anyone disputes the availability of other lists; neither does anyone dispute the accuracy of these lists. I don't.

What does concern me is that someone would have to pay for access to the information and also as a secondary note the fact that the worldwide public of today has no part in this. I personally prefer to be involved, have the data available electronically for analysis and review and all that other fun stuff. I want to be a part of creating something. I expect to give for free and to receive for free. Here in my view lies the difference with regards to available ELO lists.

The Schachinfo Active list now has approximately 9000 games and 300+ machines. The next issue will likely have 12000-15000 games and who knows how many machines starting with CC1 to Resurrections and this is available to everyone without subscriptions. I know which one I prefer to support.

Now of course it would be nice if the games played of the past were made available also to the public. How about making the games of the past accessible to everyone and perhaps even merge them with the games of the present. What would be wrong with that?

To close, I have to say that I love this Hiarcs forum. In its short life it has shown to be a great place for discussions on dedicated chess computers.

As for Wiki, what saddens me is that people who have English/Spanish/French/Portuguese etc skills and knowledge in dedicated chess and use the site on a regular basis don't step forward and support a cause that might out last us all. Entries at the Schachinfo Wiki site can be made just as easily in other languages.

All the best
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

hi Nick

thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply

however i still see no justification in using the "World '"
Online championship name in anything you have written

Speaking of the .INFO Online Championships...IIRC.. it was not even a dedicated computer that won one of the sections last time..it was the Chess Machine(PC card) and i think the main section was won by a computer never offically released for sale but rather s a modified computer(the so called EAG V11)



as to paying for lists..
i have no problem in paying for information if it is accurate and if someone derives his lively hood from it

the Selective Search lists are recognized the world over as being very accurate and games are contributed to it by collectors the world over
each issue starting from 1985 has games in it that were used in the ratings complete with diagrams and analysis
in the last issue alone several games were contributed by collectors from Spain

now i dont know the exact circulation totals of the SS but it is easily in the hundreds ..thats hundreds of people each month who are happy to pay for accurate information

do you think 300-400 different collectors read the Wiki entries each and every month?
i imagine it is not even close..(i am speaking here of 300-400 different people not 300-400 hits per month)

perhaps you are on to a good idea though
instead of Eric's lists being incorporated into .info's ..perhaps .info's lists can be incorporated into the SS
:wink:

the CCR's when they were published were also sold as a subscription and Kaufman's work on those lists were also widely recognized

the justification that the .info information is freely available is defeated by the SSDF whose lists are also free

now it is true that the SSDF no longer tests the new computers so perhaps .info could carry the torch of the SSDF for the new computers such as the Citrine and the Res-Rev..

but that does not mean they need to start all over from scratch as if no other lists ever existed
it simply comes across to many that they are simply trying to reinvent the wheel and oblivious to the work of many others that went before them

it should be noted that many times i have quoted information culled from Wiki and from the .info lists ...but when i start to see headlines like "World Championships'' then i get the distinct impression that they are talking themselves way too seriously


i guess we as reasonable men are going to have to reasonably disagree about this

My Best
Steve
PS..Ruud has plenty of articles in the SS as well
:wink:
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Hi Steve

I really do not think that we are in disagreement we just have a different point of view :P . I still buy Larry Kaufmann's CCR's when I can find an issue that I don't have. It is worth buying because it is well written and if SS is as well written then I am sure that it is also worthy of a subscription.
By the way I did not pay that much attention to it in the past because this subscription is really not that well advertised. But you are now doing a pretty good job of doing that. :D

But having said this we will continue to disagree on the ELO topic and Wiki. The more I think about it the more I am starting to favor two lists independent of each other and a free Wiki.

Options, access and availability are all things that are healthy otherwise you will one day be stuck with only 400 subscribers and that is it. That will be the whole world of dedicated chess computers.

I asked the question a few months ago on another topic and daily hits there far exceed by times x factors per day the number of monthly subscribers which SS has. If you want to promote interest and growth for SS then you need a healthy multilingual Wiki to grow the hobby. Because a hobby enthusiast and collector new to the game will end up wanting everything that he can get his hands on. A good mulitlingual Wiki is healthy for everyone and you should know this.

As for two independent ELO lists that really is not so bad either one can always act as a balance and check for the other and if nothing else not everyone wants to pay subscriptions or can afford more then 1 or 2 computers. In either case all this supports growing the hobby rather then killing it off because lack of options.

So yes we disagree as gentlemen but I think we both agree that we want this hobby to become popular again someday. I still say people should support the free Wiki because it will help to ensure growth and growth means in your case subscribers. It's all a numbers game :P

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

hi Nick

well one thing should be made clear

i am not advertising the SS and new subscribers certainly do not put any money in my pockets as i have NO financial interest or involvement in the magazine whosoever

i quote the magazine and refer to it simply because i consider it the PREMIERE source of information regarding chess computers in the world today..

as to the CCR's ..you do know of course that all issues have been just recently posted online for free(there ya go :P )
of course they are no longer published

http://www.exactachess.com/modules.php? ... ads&cid=12

the first two issues (1983-1984)were edited by one of our members here..
Dr. Enrique Irazoqui

and finally as to the number of hits on the .info page..well hits are no indication of true interest
my collection website gets a large amount of hits per week and i am still trying to figure out where all of these collectors are
:wink:

Schachcomputers Rule Regards
Steve
Robert Weck
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:13 am

Post by Robert Weck »

Hi Steve,
Steve B wrote:hi Nick

thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply

however i still see no justification in using the "World '"
Online championship name in anything you have written
But what would be neccessary in your eyes to make it worth to be called "World" championships?

People from Australia, China, Turkey, Canada, USA, Japan and so on playing with Super Enterprise, Sensory 9, King Arthur, Radio Shack 1680? :wink:

Surely not!

The computers are important, not where the operators are from! And there are not many strong computers, that you could be missing there (perhaps only the R40)

Ok, it are "unofficial" championships, but they are more meaningful (regarding the results!) than the official ones, which mostly were just jokes in these terms.

And i think nearly all computers participating in the official championships were tuned (or had modified libraries) and not released for sale with this configurations! So, why not let a V11 take part?

Remember: in Madrid '93 there was also a Chess Machine participating...

I can absolutely confirm, what Nick and José wrote here. The organisator himself was not lucky with this term, but it became a "self-runner" :wink:

And if there were once two human World Chess Champions at the same time (not to forget the three World Champions in Boxing), why not have another one? :wink:

Regarding the ELO-lists: If there would be needed only one list, why did the SSDF start their own and did not simply take Eric's results? (IIRC you stated, that Eric's list was earlier than the SSDF?)

There were many doubts about some entries in the SSDF-list, so why not making our own?

I do not know Eric's list (i am no subscriber of SS and i even do not know any in Germany) and how accurate it is, but we know (and show all facts, single results to anybody!) about our list! Is Eric doing the same in SS?

I don't want to critizise Eric's list here as to be only viewable in SS, but i cannot justify something that i know nothing about.

And sorry, but why should i pay 25 GBP a year for a rating list, when i have the SSDF and our own for free?
Yes Steve, i remember your generous offer some time ago and i was thinking about it, but i came to the conclusion, that perhaps somebody else would be more happy about it than me! Although my English is not bad, it is still not easy for me to read an English speaking magazine...

Does SS also have a list for Active Chess? I assume, no.
As many people (including me) simply do not have enough time to play 40/120 matches, such a list becomes more and more important! And i can contribute games to this list, but not for 40/120-lists.
now i dont know the exact circulation totals of the SS but it is easily in the hundreds ..thats hundreds of people each month who are happy to pay for accurate information
but why are they reading SS? Are you sure, its because of the articles about dedicated computers or are they more interested in reading about PC-engines?
do you think 300-400 different collectors read the Wiki entries each and every month?
why not? I just don't know it! Btw.: .info alone has 255 registrated members at the moment and they are all potential readers of the Wiki! And the number of reading guests (in .info and Wiki) is surely a multiple of this...

we do not want to compete with Eric and his magazine... :wink:
Contrary to the Wiki, Selective Search is new every month! :lol:
perhaps you are on to a good idea though
instead of Eric's lists being incorporated into .info's ..perhaps .info's lists can be incorporated into the SS
:wink:
I would have no problem with this idea! (as the result should be the same! :wink: )

But i would insist in placing this list on the internet (readable for free; as i would doubt, that Eric would give all .info members a free subscription! :wink: )
but that does not mean they need to start all over from scratch as if no other lists ever existed
we would have done so, if we had the games, but we didn't! And as it is neccessary to check for doubles (i hope, Eric does this!), continuing other people's lists was no option for us!

And additionally there was the question, if we were allowed to use this games! I remember, that there was some trouble with a former .info member, who insisted on removing his games (which were played some years ago) from the list! And to avoid this and further problems of this kind, it was concluded to start from scratch...

Another point: The collectors, that are contributing to the .info list, are known to us; (opposite to the creators of the SSDF and SS games!), so we can easily discuss some topics with them regarding these games.

For example: if there are games of MM IV or MMV, how can you be sure, that they were really played without HG440/HG550; or different settings in configurable computers like Risc 2500, R30, Lang modulesets and so on?

And finally: as we doubt the SSDF list, it would have been not reasonable for us to continue their list! :lol:

Sometimes it is easiest to reinvent the wheel... :wink:
it should be noted that many times i have quoted information culled from Wiki and from the .info lists ...but when i start to see headlines like "World Championships'' then i get the distinct impression that they are talking themselves way too seriously
surely less than Eric Hallsworth does with SS! :wink: And this is just reasonable as Eric is earning money with SS and contrary the .info admin is paying a lot of money to have and give fun and enjoyment to himself and other interested people!
He is always thinking about ideas to make .info and the Wiki more interesting!

And this all cannot be rated high enough! :!:

Btw.: Even we do this for fun, we try to be as accurate as possible. But we all are only human and there are and will always be errors in Wiki and .info, but i assume also in SS!
i guess we as reasonable men are going to have to reasonably disagree about this
well said! :lol:

But maybe, now you can agree to (at least some of :wink: ) my points, i've shown here...

kind regards,
Robert

P.S.: I wonder, if anybody here will read such long postings... :wink:
User avatar
Alain
Moderator
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:51 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Alain »

Hi Robert,
Robert Weck wrote:P.S.: I wonder, if anybody here will read such long postings... :wink:
I did it :wink:

and to partipate to the debate : I feel more comfortable with the rating of Schachcomputer.Info guys than Selective Search because it is more transparent.
but why are they reading SS? Are you sure, its because of the articles about dedicated computers or are they more interested in reading about PC-engines?
Definitely, I think : like you I declined Steve's generous offer because I had the occasion to read once or twice Selective Search and it was mostly discussions about dozens of different PC Engines ratings. There was a page or two about dedicated machines but these pages did not take a long time to read.
Note : I am not criticizing Selective Search, just saying that it is not for me, being too engine oriented.

Best regards,
Alain
Post Reply