Ron Nelson Ever Copied, Used , Cloned the Spracklen?

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.
Post Reply
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Re: Ron Nelson

Post by ChessChallenger »

So I corrected a wrong, with Al Lawrence. By the way it has been 40 years since I invented Chess Challenger on my Altair 8800 home built computer. And Excalibur did go bankrupt and it's assets were bought by EB Brands, so again, all was not rosy towards the end. So things are coming back, perhaps with memory errors from age and some from pain of recalling.

Fidelity Designer 2265, my most fondest Fidelity memory, a crowning achievement at Fidelity. A certified consumer computer chess master.
But what came before, the Mach IV...or some name like like that.
The Spracklens were maxed out.
Kathy, in charge of evaluation functions with Chess Masters in her office advising her, was looking for some other blue sky approach. Dan was now in complete charge of 68000 program advancement. He had executed on hash tables perfectly, so end game was fantastic. I gave him the multiprocessor hardware to use two 68000 programs (on my chess cards) with medium coupling, after I had developed my twenty one 6502 multiprocessor machine I entered at the ACM with loose coupling. But it was not enough, and costly.
All rested on null move search technology. He could not make it work to give meaningful improvement.
They were in California and I was in Miami, but I had something, I had made.
An auto-tester I built, using a competitors product playing a 68000 chess card, I had designed, with the Fidelity Spracklen engine.

I could have many automated matches, printing out PRV and scores. But it was my watching the games and the PRVs like you do, and we did at ACM tournaments that started me asking questions of Dan. Why can we not generate checks in the quiescent search? He said because it would blow up the search and slow down. Ok, I said, but what if we only generated checks that didn't occur as often, like a knight check that forked a major piece. He said, ummm,,, that would not take much and the search would not blow up.
So that is how we slowly started developing a tactical quiescent search that had all of the things a strong chess player explores when thinking of a tactical position. But I would see that the PRV was missing these obvious strong player "tricks" and have Dan look to see if he could add them.

Because of the attack map, all this type of information was easily divined. At the Micro Tournament in Spain, it was music to my ears to have the Chess Master commentator, perhaps Mike Valvo, say The Fidelity unit was playing moves it had never before been capable of playing. Just like the Masters we played to get the certified rating, who were amazed.

I used this same type of tactical threat generation on the H8 machine, since I had attack maps with the needed information.
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Ron Nelson & Larry Kaufman

Post by ChessChallenger »

Even now I have to catch myself when thinking why didn't I bring in Larry Kaufman to help in Fidelity's computer chess development.
Sid Samole gave the Spracklen's in their California office everything they asked for. They sequentially went through at least two or three Grand Master advisors.

And Larry was in the Miami area and would come in to see me or Sid and we would talk. But never meaningful to me.
We talked about his Computer Chess Reports Mag & results. He played many game of consumer computer vs. consumer computer chess like you do, and report the results, and some general opinions.
But I think it was the years of watching these computer vs computer matches that his Chess Master skills began to see why they were making the moves they were making. He could start thinking like the programs, and so he understood the programs. Not just the evaluation function, but the tactical search, and selective search that Lang used in certain positions.

So when he came to me at Excalibur, he had learned so much, we could talk turkey like you wouldn't believe.
He explained Null move search to me with such clarity, I wished I had had time to implement it, but I had production schedules...lots of them.
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Chess Challenger 1

Post by ChessChallenger »

So I built the first 1,000 Chess Challengers.

Fidelity Electronics, Ltd, was in a building on Diversey Ave on the Northside of Chicago, and had the hearing aid import company and the Bio-medical (VA sole customer) business in it. And Sid gave me a sales office to use, once he hired me away from my job at Zenith Radio Corporation where I designed IF amplifier circuits for color televisions. The CES was a success, we had orders, and he came into my office, and said he had just rented the building across the street, and the Chess Challengers would be produced there, and I was to run the production line.

Jim Clovis, the technician and handy man, from Fidelity's main building bought & installed in my building, a larger production wave solder machine than he used for the bio-medical low volume productions. He trained a guy "off the street" to run it and told me good luck and went back to his building. I taught people to stuff circuit boards, then wave soldered, then assembled, tested and packed. So I opened the building and closed it at the end of the day. I built them....and taught "techs" to repair the ones that didn't work.
Fortunately they sold and Sid went for 10,000 pieces and hired Bob Heekin, an experienced electronics production manager to continue real organized production and handle the people problems.
Then Sid rented another building down on the next street for me and I started CC3, CC10 and Checker Challenger and hired 2 engineers and a programmer to help with Bridge, Checkers and Chess.
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 »

ChessChallenger wrote:


Kathy, in charge of evaluation functions with Chess Masters in her office advising her, was looking for some other blue sky approach.

But it was my watching the games and the PRVs like you do, and we did at ACM tournaments that started me asking questions of Dan. Why can we not generate checks in the quiescent search? He said because it would blow up the search and slow down. Ok, I said, but what if we only generated checks that didn't occur as often, like a knight check that forked a major piece. He said, ummm,,, that would not take much and the search would not blow up.
So that is how we slowly started developing a tactical quiescent search that had all of the things a strong chess player explores when thinking of a tactical position. But I would see that the PRV was missing these obvious strong player "tricks" and have Dan look to see if he could add them.

Because of the attack map, all this type of information was easily divined. At the Micro Tournament in Spain, it was music to my ears to have the Chess Master commentator, perhaps Mike Valvo, say The Fidelity unit was playing moves it had never before been capable of playing. Just like the Masters we played to get the certified rating, who were amazed.

I used this same type of tactical threat generation on the H8 machine, since I had attack maps with the needed information.
Hi Ron
welcome back
very interesting to read that you consulted with Dan Spracklen on some of his Fidelity programs
as you can see we are now debating whether or not to list your name ..alone ..as the author of those Excalibur computers you listed .. or.. along side Kaufmans due to his consultation with you and his opening book contributions
i know you already agreed to share the spotlight but i think the community at large ..if it wants to be fair ..will need to revisit every program author listing for every chess computer and give credit for every meaningful contribution made to every program author
of course this will not happen although in your case i think the listing will probably wind up being shared on some web sites due to your modesty and high level of integrity in sharing the credit
one web sites so far is listing you separately while another is showing a shared listing

Best Regards
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

ChessChallenger wrote:So I built the first 1,000 Chess Challengers.


Fortunately they sold and Sid went for 10,000 pieces and hired Bob Heekin, an experienced electronics production manager to continue real organized production and handle the people problems.
Then Sid rented another building down on the next street for me and I started CC3, CC10 and Checker Challenger and hired 2 engineers and a programmer to help with Bridge, Checkers and Chess.
just to be clear here..
you sold 1000 Chess Challengers and then went on to produce 10,000 more products ( such as the CC3.CC10 etc..etc..)
you did not produce more then 1000 Chess Challengers(CC1's)
is that correct?

Asking While The Iron Is Hot Regards
Steve
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Chess Challenger 1

Post by ChessChallenger »

just to be clear here..
you sold 1000 Chess Challengers and then went on to produce 10,000 more products ( such as the CC3.CC10 etc..etc..)
you did not produce more then 1000 Chess Challengers(CC1's)
is that correct?

Asking While The Iron Is Hot Regards
Steve

The Chess Challenger hardware PCB was a disaster.
The Tech at some university who layed out the PCB for Fidelity's Bio Medical division had no clue about PCB layout. God bless the guy, he hand wired the prototype Chess Challenger. Hand wired...and it worked.

I worked on electronics at Zenith in the 45Mhz IF group. I learned about good PCB layout.
So there was no way I was letting us go beyond the first 1,000 PCB.
I talked to Fidelity's talented mechanical designer to see if he would do it with my advice and explained the black tape we used at Zenith. He looked into it and said they use blue and red translucent tape for double side PCBs. So I showed how to layout ground and power first, with heavy traces and ground copper area.

He did it and it was beautiful, and reliable.
Those were the PCBs used in the next production. I am not sure when I finished, but I started working on the CC3 in my office while in the production building while the automated resistors machine was stuffing PCBs.

I don't know if the CC3 ROMs started with the new good PCB or not.
But there were only 1,000 of those horrible PCBs.
Brian B
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:37 pm

Post by Brian B »

ChessChallenger wrote:So I built the first 1,000 Chess Challengers.

Then Sid rented another building down on the next street for me and I started CC3, CC10 and Checker Challenger and hired 2 engineers and a programmer to help with Bridge, Checkers and Chess.
I purchased CC3 while I was still in high school, I think it cost me around $275 or so. That was an enormous sum of money for me those days and I still remember the excitement when the computer arrived. Finally, I could play a game of chess any time I wanted to play! Or play at all, this was in 1978 and in those days I had a hard time finding a game around the neighborhood. While CC3 wasn't as strong as I hoped it would be, it still beat a few of the players on the high school team, and if I wasn't careful I would drop a piece to it now and again. As I remember it, I think Level 2 was effectively tougher to beat than Level 3 for some reason. If you hung a piece, it would definitely find it on Level 2.

These days one of my favorite computers is the Excalibur GM. It is just the right strength for me as I tend to score around 40% or so on it.

Ron, many thanks for your contributions! I hope you find the time to get back into computer chess once again.

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

Post by spacious_mind »

Hi Ron,

Many thanks for returning to us and a belated Merry Christmas to you. Many of us are trying to correct our Webpages as a result of all the information that you have provided, and I am sure that we will have to rewrite a lot more as a result of all the new information that you are giving us.

In addition to correcting the computers with your Authorship, I have been trying to also correct the hardware where possible as well based on the information you provided in your computer listing. Hopefully you can recall some hardware details to help us correct any mistakes we might be making.

1997 Excalibur Chess 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Sabre 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Squire 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Kingmaster II 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997
1997 Travel Kingmaster II 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997
1997 Crusader 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997

In the above list I can follow all the computers except for Sabre as it seems to be a computer from pre 1995. Sabre II I think came out in 06/95 based on a time sticker on the computer (which may also be a meaningless sticker). You do have Saber III missing on your list however that should fit nicely into your timeline above, especially since its design is similar to Crusader that matches your timeline. Is it possible that Saber III Model 901-E3 is meant under Sabre?

Image

Based on your invaluable information we did find a spec sheet for the 6805 and have been able to fill in the hardware gaps. However as a couple of the 6805 in your list state 4K I am still not sure if the ROM should be 4 KB in size. It would be great if you could recall and confirm this.

Image

With Alexandra we are still unsure about its speed the spec shows 5 MHz but we don't know if perhaps you used at 10 MHz or 12 MHz quartz as well.

Lastly with Chess Station:

Image

Are we correct in assuming 6 MHz?

Very many of your designed computers have the above 3 ROM's therefore in getting it right on the above three computers, it will help us a lot in figuring out most of the other Excalibur computers.

Many thanks and despite our all our heated debates from passionate people that we all are, we do all have one thing in common which is that we all do love your posts and we are all honored that you are here sharing with us your past.

Many thanks and best regards
Nick
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Post by ChessChallenger »

Brian B wrote:
ChessChallenger wrote:So I built the first 1,000 Chess Challengers.

Then Sid rented another building down on the next street for me and I started CC3, CC10 and Checker Challenger and hired 2 engineers and a programmer to help with Bridge, Checkers and Chess.
I purchased CC3 while I was still in high school, I think it cost me around $275 or so. That was an enormous sum of money for me those days and I still remember the excitement when the computer arrived. Finally, I could play a game of chess any time I wanted to play! Or play at all, this was in 1978 and in those days I had a hard time finding a game around the neighborhood. While CC3 wasn't as strong as I hoped it would be, it still beat a few of the players on the high school team, and if I wasn't careful I would drop a piece to it now and again. As I remember it, I think Level 2 was effectively tougher to beat than Level 3 for some reason. If you hung a piece, it would definitely find it on Level 2.

These days one of my favorite computers is the Excalibur GM. It is just the right strength for me as I tend to score around 40% or so on it.

Ron, many thanks for your contributions! I hope you find the time to get back into computer chess once again.

All the best,
Brian B
A customer (a consumer) of the CC1 flew down from Canada to see Fidelity and we talked. I told him the CC1 was a weak chess opponent, why did he like it so much. It was because he could play an opponent behind closed doors that would not embarrass him or ridicule him. I let him play one of the CC3 test units.

The CC1 was a 1 ply search machine with an exchange evaluator.
CC3 was a selective search program. Level 1 was the 1 Ply of CC1, 2 and 3 were different selective search criteria. My later machines always had a selective search level along with fixed ply no selective search levels.
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Re: Chess Challenger 1

Post by Steve B »

Steve B wrote:

just to be clear here..
you sold 1000 Chess Challengers and then went on to produce 10,000 more products ( such as the CC3.CC10 etc..etc..)
you did not produce more then 1000 Chess Challengers(CC1's)
is that correct?

Asking While The Iron Is Hot Regards
Steve


ChessChallenger wrote:
I don't know if the CC3 ROMs started with the new good PCB or not.
But there were only 1,000 of those horrible PCBs.
Thanks Ron for your reply
1000 History making dedicated chess computers is a better description
: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 »

spacious_mind wrote:
Image

Based on your invaluable information we did find a spec sheet for the 6805 and have been able to fill in the hardware gaps. However as a couple of the 6805 in your list state 4K I am still not sure if the ROM should be 4 KB in size. It would be great if you could recall and confirm this.
Well perhaps perseverance does pay off. We have found another spec sheet:

MC68HC05 4K ROM 176 Bytes RAM 4 MHz with internal operating frequency of 2.1 MHz.

Hardware features
• Fully static design featuring the industry standard M68HC05 family CPU core
• 2.1 MHz internal operating frequency at 5V; 1.0 MHz at 3V
• 176 bytes of RAM

Best regards
Nick
mjlef
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:21 am
Location: United States

Re: Ron Nelson

Post by mjlef »

ChessChallenger wrote:Thanks for your interest in me and my products.
I would not have normally engaged discussions on a forum, but I could not let anyone think I had used the Fidelity Spracklen program,
or that I had not personally programmed and designed every chess computer Excalibur manufactured in China.

I do want to get back into computer chess, I am comfortably retired enjoying life with my wife, traveling (European River cruises are fantastic),
my grand children and dancing. I am not a fan of Facebook, but I recently joined so I can record my life events,
and go backwards on the timeline to memorialize my life. I do not accept friends I do not personally know.

I do not pretend to think I am in the same league as the Spracklens, Kittinger, Lang, Morsch or Shroeder.
They are all brilliant people that, to my knowledge, worked 24/7 on their high end chess programs.
I on the other hand designed and programmed many consumer products and games. I enjoyed working at
the low end and the challenges small memory and low cost processors presented. I was proud of my
single chip 8049 2K bytes 128 byte ram chess engine. My 4-bit processor chess engine was also another
great accomplishment for me since it used sophisticated PRV and Killer Move search techniques.
Ron,

It is great having you here on the forum. One thing I have always wanted to do was write a history of computer chess. The intellectual battle of ideas as they vastly improved over the years. So I thank you for sharing here.

Fitting PVS and killer moves it such a small (memory) processor is outstanding. I think trying to program a 4 bit microprocessor would cause brain damage in me.

Mark Lefler
ChessChallenger
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:48 pm

Post by ChessChallenger »

spacious_mind wrote:Hi Ron,

Many thanks for returning to us and a belated Merry Christmas to you. Many of us are trying to correct our Webpages as a result of all the information that you have provided, and I am sure that we will have to rewrite a lot more as a result of all the new information that you are giving us.

In addition to correcting the computers with your Authorship, I have been trying to also correct the hardware where possible as well based on the information you provided in your computer listing. Hopefully you can recall some hardware details to help us correct any mistakes we might be making.

1997 Excalibur Chess 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Sabre 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Squire 6805 4K Chess 7/23/1997
1997 Kingmaster II 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997
1997 Travel Kingmaster II 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997
1997 Crusader 6805 Chess & Checkers 7/23/1997

In the above list I can follow all the computers except for Sabre as it seems to be a computer from pre 1995. Sabre II I think came out in 06/95 based on a time sticker on the computer (which may also be a meaningless sticker). You do have Saber III missing on your list however that should fit nicely into your timeline above, especially since its design is similar to Crusader that matches your timeline. Is it possible that Saber III Model 901-E3 is meant under Sabre?

Image

Based on your invaluable information we did find a spec sheet for the 6805 and have been able to fill in the hardware gaps. However as a couple of the 6805 in your list state 4K I am still not sure if the ROM should be 4 KB in size. It would be great if you could recall and confirm this.

Image

With Alexandra we are still unsure about its speed the spec shows 5 MHz but we don't know if perhaps you used at 10 MHz or 12 MHz quartz as well.

Lastly with Chess Station:

Image

Are we correct in assuming 6 MHz?

Very many of your designed computers have the above 3 ROM's therefore in getting it right on the above three computers, it will help us a lot in figuring out most of the other Excalibur computers.

Many thanks and despite our all our heated debates from passionate people that we all are, we do all have one thing in common which is that we all do love your posts and we are all honored that you are here sharing with us your past.

Many thanks and best regards
Nick,
There have been a lot of questions thrown at me and it is very overwhelming.
The Fidelity days were days of paper files, schematics in PCAD format with no PDF universal file read available. I had a large file cabinet with all of my design histories. But with Fidelity being sold, Excalibur going bankrupt, and me downsizing and retiring to Central Florida, I threw away most of it.

Excalibur on the other hand is different. At Excalibur's time things are starting to go electronic. So I have little paper documents but a lot of computer archived information.
I didn't archive it with any system of retrieval, so it is very helter skelter. So it would take time and a desire to do it, to answer all Excalibur questions.
I have an interest to use online computer chess timelines to try to make my own about Fidelity. I used the name Mach IV in a post, I can't believe I remembered that.

Someone questioned if I was responsible for the Einstein Computer Chess games, and that it seemed I stopped working in 2006 at Excalibur. I wrote the spread sheet in 2006, I wrote in a post I did not complete it, and I certainly didn't go back and update it.
Maybe I should work on my Excalibur Chronology first, since it can be perfectly accurate. mmmm...

I teach Line Dance in the afternoon and the evenings on Tuesdays, today.
Yesterday I went to a Line Dance class in Orlando and danced for 3 hours.
I have more interest in writing an AI Choreographer than another chess program.
Mike Watters
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:31 pm
Location: Milton Keynes
Contact:

Post by Mike Watters »

ChessChallenger wrote:I have an interest to use online computer chess timelines to try to make my own about Fidelity.
Ron

There is a Timeline on my website which may be of use to you in attaching dates to events and machines. It is as comprehensive as I can make it with 680+ chess computers recorded so far, including all Fidelitys and Excaliburs I know about - http://www.chesscomputeruk.com/html/timeline.html

Mike
User avatar
mclane
Senior Member
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:04 am
Location: Luenen, germany, US of europe
Contact:

Re: Ron Nelson

Post by mclane »

Hi Ron,

I let Igor play at tournament time control 40/120
In a little tournament against other dedicated chess computers to see how it plays and how strong it plays.

Look yourself how good the h8 machine played:

Code: Select all

Motor Punkte ChMiFiMiStChCXFiSpChGaMeDeMeMeNoNiMeMeMeMeEmMiIgDeDePsCoSuGlSiMeSuExRuChMaCoKiElKaTiKrCXReMeMeScNoStExRaScCa S-B
01: Chessmachine512 The King2.54 {Brettcomputer} 29,0/31 · 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 = 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 446,00
02: Millennium Chess Genius {Brettcomputer} 24,5/30 0 · 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 1 0 = = = = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 300,25
03: Fidelity Avantgarde V9 {Brettcomputer} 23,0/29 0 0 · 0 = 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 317,50
04: MilanoPro {Brettcomputer} 23,0/33 0 0 1 · 0 = 1 = = 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 311,75
05: Star Diamond {Brettcomputer} 22,5/33 0 1 = 1 · 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 = 1 = 1 1 0 1 0 1 = = 0 1 1 1 1 1 327,00
06: Chess Explorer Pro 32mhz {Brettcomputer} 22,5/31 0 = 0 = 1 · = 1 1 0 1 1 1 = 1 0 = 1 = = 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 309,75
07: CXG Dominator {Brettcomputer} 22,0/32 0 1 = · 0 ? 0 1 = 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 = = 0 1 1 1 1 1 266,75
08: Fidelity Designer 2325 25 mhz {Brettcomputer} 22,0/29 0 0 0 1 · 1 = 1 1 = = 1 1 = = 1 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 261,00
09: Sparc {Brettcomputer} 22,0/30 0 0 0 = 0 ? · 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 257,75
10: Challenger 24mhz {Brettcomputer} 21,5/33 0 0 = = 0 0 1 · 1 0 1 = 0 1 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 = 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 299,00
11: Gavon Faile 1.4 {Brettcomputer} 20,0/29 0 0 1 0 0 1 = 0 0 · 1 = 0 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 246,75
12: Mephisto College {Brettcomputer} 20,0/30 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 · 1 0 = 1 1 1 1 0 = 1 = 1 = = 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 233,25
13: Designer2265 Master {Brettcomputer} 19,5/31 0 1 1 0 0 0 = 0 · 0 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 251,00
14: Mephisto Berlin {Brettcomputer} 18,5/26 0 0 0 0 = 1 = 1 1 · 1 1 1 1 1 = 0 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 269,75
15: Mephisto MM5 {Brettcomputer} 18,5/33 0 = 0 = 1 0 0 1 = = 0 · = 0 = = 0 1 1 1 1 = 0 1 1 1 1 = 0 0 1 1 1 1 242,50
16: Novag citrine {Brettcomputer} 18,5/30 = 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 = · 0 = 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 = 0 1 = 1 1 1 1 222,75
17: NigelShort 10mhz {Brettcomputer} 18,0/30 0 = 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 1 1 · 1 1 = 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 227,25
18: Mephisto Montreal {Brettcomputer} 16,0/28 = = 0 0 0 = 1 = 0 1 0 = = · = 1 1 0 = = 1 1 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 223,25
19: Mephisto Mega IV {Brettcomputer} 15,0/32 0 1 0 0 0 = = 0 = 0 0 = · 0 0 1 0 1 = 1 0 1 = 1 0 1 1 = 0 1 1 1 = 174,00
20: Mephisto academy {Brettcomputer} 15,0/31 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 · = 0 0 0 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 161,00
21: Mephisto Schachakademie 24mhz {Brettcomputer} 14,5/30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 = · 1 1 1 = = 1 1 = 0 0 1 1 = 0 1 = 1 174,25
22: Emerald Classic Plus {Brettcomputer} 13,5/32 0 0 0 = = 0 = 0 = 0 1 0 = 0 1 0 · = = 0 0 0 = 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 1 161,75
23: Milano {Brettcomputer} 13,0/30 0 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 = 1 1 1 1 0 = · 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 = = = = 1 = 1 166,50
24: Igor 24mhz {Brettcomputer} 13,0/31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 1 1 = 1 · 1 0 1 0 0 = 1 = 1 1 = = 1 155,50
25: Designer2000 Display 5mhz {Brettcomputer} 13,0/29 = 0 1 = 0 ? 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 · 1 0 = = 1 = 0 1 1 = = = = 1 0 1 152,00
26: Designer2100 {Brettcomputer} 12,5/29 0 0 = = = 0 0 1 = 0 0 = 1 1 0 · 1 0 1 = 0 0 0 = 1 = 0 = 1 1 162,00
27: PsionST EMU unlimited {Brettcomputer} 12,5/21 1 0 0 = = 0 0 1 0 · 1 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 148,00
28: Corona D+ {Brettcomputer} 12,5/34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 0 1 1 = 1 · 0 0 0 0 = = 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 117,50
29: Supermondial B {Brettcomputer} 12,0/30 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 = = 1 1 1 = 0 0 1 · 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 1 = 1 158,00
30: Glasgow Emu unlimited {Brettcomputer} 12,0/24 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 · 1 0 1 1 1 1 138,75
31: Simultano {Brettcomputer} 11,5/32 0 0 = 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 = = 0 0 = 0 1 0 · = 0 1 0 = 0 1 0 1 = 1 143,75
32: Mephisto MM2 {Brettcomputer} 11,5/33 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 = · 0 1 0 1 = = 1 1 1 0 = 1 123,75
33: Super Forte C {Brettcomputer} 11,0/19 0 0 1 = 1 = 1 0 0 = 0 1 = 1 · 1 1 = = 1 154,75
34: Excel68000 {Brettcomputer} 11,0/27 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 0 = 0 1 1 1 1 = 1 0 · 1 1 0 1 0 0 143,50
35: Ruby {Brettcomputer} 11,0/26 0 = = 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = = 1 = 1 1 · 0 1 = 0 1 1 1 126,75
36: Chafitz Sargon 4.0 16 mhz {Brettcomputer} 10,5/29 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 · 0 = 1 1 1 0 1 = = 1 1 75,50
37: Maestro D++ 6 mhz {Brettcomputer} 9,5/24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 0 1 0 = 1 = 0 1 0 0 · 1 0 1 1 119,50
38: Constellation Expert {Brettcomputer} 9,5/29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 = 0 1 1 0 · = = 0 1 1 1 89,75
39: Kishon Chesster {Brettcomputer} 9,0/26 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 = = 0 1 = · 1 1 1 102,75
40: Elegance 8 mhz {Brettcomputer} 8,5/16 0 0 = 1 = = 0 = = 1 1 0 · 1 1 1 0 99,25
41: Kasparov Blitz {Brettcomputer} 8,0/31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 = = 0 0 0 0 0 1 = = = 0 0 · = 1 0 103,75
42: Tiger Grenadier {Brettcomputer} 7,0/30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 0 = = 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 · 0 1 = 1 69,50
43: Krypton Regency {Brettcomputer} 6,5/33 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = = = 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 = · 0 0 84,50
44: CXG Sphinx40 {Brettcomputer} 6,0/29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 = 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 · 1 1 47,25
45: Rebel X (Portorose Experimental) {Brettcomputer} 5,5/12 0 = 0 = 0 · 0 1 1 = 0 1 1 22,75
46: Mephisto Polgar {Brettcomputer} 4,5/10 0 0 = = 0 1 = 1 1 · 0 59,50
47: Mephi IIIb 8mhz {Brettcomputer} 4,5/30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 · 0 = 45,00
48: Schneider Titan {Brettcomputer} 4,5/25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 0 0 = 0 1 1 · 36,25
49: Novag Supremo 16 mhz {Brettcomputer} 2,0/7 0 = 0 0 = 1 0 · 23,75
50: Steinitz encore 4mhz {Brettcomputer} 2,0/5 1 0 0 = = · 18,00
51: Excalibur Grandmaster 32 mhz {Brettcomputer} 2,0/6 0 0 0 0 1 1 · 12,00
52: Radioshack 2150L 16 mhz {Brettcomputer} 0,0/5 0 0 0 0 0 · 0,00
52: Scisys Turbostar 432 {Brettcomputer} 0,0/5 0 0 0 0 0 · 0,00
52: Capa {Brettcomputer} 0,0/0 · 0,00
54 participants (some still have to play many games)
And Igor is 24th in a group with fidelity designer 2000 and 2100 (spracklen) or Mephisto Milano (Ed schröder)
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
Post Reply