I'm looking to acquire a Lexibook dedicated machine, since I understand they all contain a 4K program by Kaare Danielson.
I'm wondering if anyone can confirm this is indeed the case, since there seem to be quite a few different types of Lexibook machines around - ranging from a small travel unit to at least 4 different tabletop units that I have found thus far.
If they all do have the same program I'm then wondering if the processors are different (i.e slower ones in the cheaper models, etc).
The reason I ask all this is because I would like to settle the question as to which is the strongest 4K dedicated machine ever produced thus far. At present, Danielson seems to claim this mantle, however I'd like to see his program do battle with Kittinger's Novag Star Beryl. But I want it to be a fair fight...
Lexibook dedicated computer question
Moderator: Ras
-
tiger
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:15 am
- Location: Guadeloupe (french caribbean island)
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
JonP01 wrote:I'm looking to acquire a Lexibook dedicated machine, since I understand they all contain a 4K program by Kaare Danielson.
I'm wondering if anyone can confirm this is indeed the case, since there seem to be quite a few different types of Lexibook machines around - ranging from a small travel unit to at least 4 different tabletop units that I have found thus far.
If they all do have the same program I'm then wondering if the processors are different (i.e slower ones in the cheaper models, etc).
The reason I ask all this is because I would like to settle the question as to which is the strongest 4K dedicated machine ever produced thus far. At present, Danielson seems to claim this mantle, however I'd like to see his program do battle with Kittinger's Novag Star Beryl. But I want it to be a fair fight...
I'm not answering your question but I seem to remember that Kaare Danielsen was the author of the chess program once packaged with the Turbo Pascal compiler and then with the Borland C++ compiler.
I mention it because this question has been asked some time ago. The program's executable was named "wchess.exe" and some asked if it was a Kittinger program. It was definitely not. The author was not mentionned in the C++ version, but it was in the Pascal version. the C++ version was just an almost litteral port of the Pascal version, but with some comments removed.
// Christophe
-
JonP01
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
There is a mention of the program packaged with the compiler here:
http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... n%2C_Kaare
http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... n%2C_Kaare
-
JonP01
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
I was just looking at Kaare Danielson's website:
http://www.danielsen.com/resume.shtml
He indicates that he developed a newer 4K program for Yeno in 1993. I had thought the program in the Lexibooks was just a slightly modified version of the program found in the old Scysis Explorer, Companion II and Concord (with the faster clock speed).
It looks, however, like it was an all-new development for a different processor line (Motorola) though. Given that I feel the Novag Star Beryl is perhaps 100 - 120 points stronger than the original Companion II, it looks like a match between Star Beryl and a Lexibook machine would be much closer than I first thought. It's possible the Lexibook could even be stronger - I have absolutely no idea now!
http://www.danielsen.com/resume.shtml
He indicates that he developed a newer 4K program for Yeno in 1993. I had thought the program in the Lexibooks was just a slightly modified version of the program found in the old Scysis Explorer, Companion II and Concord (with the faster clock speed).
It looks, however, like it was an all-new development for a different processor line (Motorola) though. Given that I feel the Novag Star Beryl is perhaps 100 - 120 points stronger than the original Companion II, it looks like a match between Star Beryl and a Lexibook machine would be much closer than I first thought. It's possible the Lexibook could even be stronger - I have absolutely no idea now!
-
Steve B
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
tiger wrote:JonP01 wrote:
The reason I ask all this is because I would like to settle the question as to which is the strongest 4K dedicated machine ever produced thus far.
yes i am also interested in this question Jon
i have all of the Yeno's(Sorry no Lexibooks)
as far as i know all of the Yenos are 4k except for the 532XL(8K)
the Yeno 430XT is the same computer as the Lexibook Chessman Pro
Cameron and i did some testing about a month ago to confirm this
if you want to have a go at it pitting your SB against my 430XT in a couple of games on Playchess let me know in a PM
the only issue as i see it is that you prefer time controls of only 40/2
while i prefer game 30 or as close as i can get to it depending on the available levels
so for your purposes the games would not carry much weight but for my purposes they would
Let Me Know Regards
Steve
-
JonP01
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
Hi Steve,
Cameron and I discussed this issue at much length last night. We both came to the conclusion that the Star Beryl 4K program is significantly stronger than any of the Danielson 4K programs. My own estimate is actually over 100 points stronger. In two examples, the Danielson program falls for the QGD trap after 3 minutes thought whereas Beryl sees the trap after a mere 25 seconds. The Danielson programs have performed relaitvely poorly on tactical tests whereas the Beryl shines relatively speaking, able to spot mates in 4 or 5 moves on the 3 minute level. Also, the Beryl has a surprisingly strong endgame - it's about the same standard as the rest of it's game which is quite remarkable.
I used to defeat my Companion II years ago without raising too much of a sweat, but against the Beryl it gives me a tough game - and I play significantly better chess nowadays than I did in the early 1980s.
Cameron offered to loan me his Tandy 1650 for a 40 in 2 match, however I just feel that it would not be of much interest to be perfectly honest. I may however, think about doing it, if only to satisfy myself one way or the other.
Of course, were Mr. Danielson himself to raise objections to Star Beryl being stronger (since his resume at present states that his 4K program is still the strongest 4K program in the world), I am happy to put the matter to a test by way of a 20 game 40 in 2 match, played at my Mansion at Blair Athol
I did actually communicate with Mr. Danielson to see if I could get any specific information regarding the hardware and software changes to his 4K program from 1993 as opposed to his program from the early 80s. Although I have not heard back (and of course may not), it looks likely that the changes are not really that significant in the context of playing strength per se, with the program showing similar tactical shortcomings, etc.
You are also right about time controls, etc. For me, the only result that would carry any weight (in the matter of a one on one playing stregnth comparison is an absolute minimum of 20 match games played at 40 moves in 2 hours. Even 10 games doesn't necessarily reveal much, as Cameron has seen himself on a number of ocassions.
Not so enthusiastic about it Regards
Jonathan
Cameron and I discussed this issue at much length last night. We both came to the conclusion that the Star Beryl 4K program is significantly stronger than any of the Danielson 4K programs. My own estimate is actually over 100 points stronger. In two examples, the Danielson program falls for the QGD trap after 3 minutes thought whereas Beryl sees the trap after a mere 25 seconds. The Danielson programs have performed relaitvely poorly on tactical tests whereas the Beryl shines relatively speaking, able to spot mates in 4 or 5 moves on the 3 minute level. Also, the Beryl has a surprisingly strong endgame - it's about the same standard as the rest of it's game which is quite remarkable.
I used to defeat my Companion II years ago without raising too much of a sweat, but against the Beryl it gives me a tough game - and I play significantly better chess nowadays than I did in the early 1980s.
Cameron offered to loan me his Tandy 1650 for a 40 in 2 match, however I just feel that it would not be of much interest to be perfectly honest. I may however, think about doing it, if only to satisfy myself one way or the other.
Of course, were Mr. Danielson himself to raise objections to Star Beryl being stronger (since his resume at present states that his 4K program is still the strongest 4K program in the world), I am happy to put the matter to a test by way of a 20 game 40 in 2 match, played at my Mansion at Blair Athol
I did actually communicate with Mr. Danielson to see if I could get any specific information regarding the hardware and software changes to his 4K program from 1993 as opposed to his program from the early 80s. Although I have not heard back (and of course may not), it looks likely that the changes are not really that significant in the context of playing strength per se, with the program showing similar tactical shortcomings, etc.
You are also right about time controls, etc. For me, the only result that would carry any weight (in the matter of a one on one playing stregnth comparison is an absolute minimum of 20 match games played at 40 moves in 2 hours. Even 10 games doesn't necessarily reveal much, as Cameron has seen himself on a number of ocassions.
Not so enthusiastic about it Regards
Jonathan
-
Steve B
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
hi Jon
i wouldnt be so quick to place the Star Beryl above the Yenos based solely upon the tests you and Cameron have developed
the Yenos do ponder while on the move and the SB does not
in a short time control this might not make a difference but in longer time controls it could have a significant impact
while one can argue that the ability to ponder is not really indicia of program strength and is merely a feature of the computer i can only say this
if a Yeno can defeat the SB in match play and the reason is due to its pondering ability .. then it cannot be said that the SB is the strongest 4k computer ever released for sale
as i of course have the SB as well i will pit these two against each other in the very near future
currently however i am in the middle of administering annual physicals to the "Excellence "Family of Fidelity computers starting from the 3Mhz EP12 all the way up to the Excel Mach IV (10 different models in all) so the Yeno-SB match ups have to wait their turn
So Many Computers..So Little Time Regards
Steve
i wouldnt be so quick to place the Star Beryl above the Yenos based solely upon the tests you and Cameron have developed
the Yenos do ponder while on the move and the SB does not
in a short time control this might not make a difference but in longer time controls it could have a significant impact
while one can argue that the ability to ponder is not really indicia of program strength and is merely a feature of the computer i can only say this
if a Yeno can defeat the SB in match play and the reason is due to its pondering ability .. then it cannot be said that the SB is the strongest 4k computer ever released for sale
as i of course have the SB as well i will pit these two against each other in the very near future
currently however i am in the middle of administering annual physicals to the "Excellence "Family of Fidelity computers starting from the 3Mhz EP12 all the way up to the Excel Mach IV (10 different models in all) so the Yeno-SB match ups have to wait their turn
So Many Computers..So Little Time Regards
Steve
-
JonP01
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
Hi Steve,
Maybe it is indeed a good idea for us to get onto Playchess and play a couple of 30 sec / move games. I'd prefer a minute per move, but I understand if you wish to stick at 30 seconds. Whilst they won't really have any "official" meaning as regards a serious strength comparison, it might give me a rough indicator as to whether my playing a serious match at classical time controls is worthy of consideration.
As mentioned before, I wasn't terribly impressed with the original Companion II at 3 minutes per move and your reports back to Cameron on the Yeno were not encouraging either. However, the poor test results don't neccessarily indicate the worthiness of an opponent.
People might remember my very discouraging tests of the Chessmaster Diamond, for example - it fell into quite basic traps. However, in a few off-hand games against Star Beryl, it actually had a won position in one of them (but the ubiquitous threefold repetition bug reared it's ugly head). In another, it was about to Queen a pawn but then inexpliably left it en prise. That said, I had the Beryl on 90 seconds per move and the Diamond on game in 2.5 hours - so it wasn't a fair fight. Nevertheless, that was an example of a machine that performed very poorly in tests, but actually playing a solid game before it's strange bugs caused it's game to fall apart.
Certainly I agree that the pondering is helpful, although of course it needs to predict the move in order for to make a diference. I do actually remember that my old Companion II was a much better opponent on it's 6 minute level than the 3 minute level. Of course, as patient as I am, 6 minutes a move average response time was just too long to wait.
This of course begs the question. What precisely is the clock speed of these Lexibooks? Cameron tells me that one of them (the peg sensory - I assume this is the small portable - not the plastic piece version of the Excalibur Glass Chess) runs at half speed whereas the others run at..umm...full speed
But what is full speed? Is it 7 mhz or thereabouts? It's not documented in the user manual. My worry is that the old Scisys Concord II ran at 7.2 Mhz, but it's reponse times were never adjusted to account for the faster processor. These newer Lexibooks appear to have a proper 3 minute level. But is that 3 minute level considered comparable to the old Companion II at 3 minutes with it's 3.6 Mhz processor? Or is it like the Companion II given 6 minutes per move?
If the Lexibook runs at 7.2 Mhz (or close to it) and it has a 3 minute level appropriate for 40/2 play, then it could well play like the old Companion II at 6 minutes per move. That being the case, it could potentially be an interesting match up, although I still have my reservations. It would cost me a fair bit to buy one of these machines for such a match up, so I would really need to be sure it was going to be worth the expense.
On the other hand, that claim on Danielson's resume is really grinding away at me So...
How about a nice game of chess Regards
Jonathan
Maybe it is indeed a good idea for us to get onto Playchess and play a couple of 30 sec / move games. I'd prefer a minute per move, but I understand if you wish to stick at 30 seconds. Whilst they won't really have any "official" meaning as regards a serious strength comparison, it might give me a rough indicator as to whether my playing a serious match at classical time controls is worthy of consideration.
As mentioned before, I wasn't terribly impressed with the original Companion II at 3 minutes per move and your reports back to Cameron on the Yeno were not encouraging either. However, the poor test results don't neccessarily indicate the worthiness of an opponent.
People might remember my very discouraging tests of the Chessmaster Diamond, for example - it fell into quite basic traps. However, in a few off-hand games against Star Beryl, it actually had a won position in one of them (but the ubiquitous threefold repetition bug reared it's ugly head). In another, it was about to Queen a pawn but then inexpliably left it en prise. That said, I had the Beryl on 90 seconds per move and the Diamond on game in 2.5 hours - so it wasn't a fair fight. Nevertheless, that was an example of a machine that performed very poorly in tests, but actually playing a solid game before it's strange bugs caused it's game to fall apart.
Certainly I agree that the pondering is helpful, although of course it needs to predict the move in order for to make a diference. I do actually remember that my old Companion II was a much better opponent on it's 6 minute level than the 3 minute level. Of course, as patient as I am, 6 minutes a move average response time was just too long to wait.
This of course begs the question. What precisely is the clock speed of these Lexibooks? Cameron tells me that one of them (the peg sensory - I assume this is the small portable - not the plastic piece version of the Excalibur Glass Chess) runs at half speed whereas the others run at..umm...full speed
But what is full speed? Is it 7 mhz or thereabouts? It's not documented in the user manual. My worry is that the old Scisys Concord II ran at 7.2 Mhz, but it's reponse times were never adjusted to account for the faster processor. These newer Lexibooks appear to have a proper 3 minute level. But is that 3 minute level considered comparable to the old Companion II at 3 minutes with it's 3.6 Mhz processor? Or is it like the Companion II given 6 minutes per move?
If the Lexibook runs at 7.2 Mhz (or close to it) and it has a 3 minute level appropriate for 40/2 play, then it could well play like the old Companion II at 6 minutes per move. That being the case, it could potentially be an interesting match up, although I still have my reservations. It would cost me a fair bit to buy one of these machines for such a match up, so I would really need to be sure it was going to be worth the expense.
On the other hand, that claim on Danielson's resume is really grinding away at me
So...How about a nice game of chess Regards
Jonathan
-
JonP01
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
Hi Steve,
A couple of possible suggested "start" times:
1. New York: 7.00 AM Sunday = Sydney 9.00 PM Sunday
or
2. New York: 6.00 PM Sunday = Sydney 8.00 AM Monday
A couple of possible suggested "start" times:
1. New York: 7.00 AM Sunday = Sydney 9.00 PM Sunday
or
2. New York: 6.00 PM Sunday = Sydney 8.00 AM Monday
-
klute
Re: Lexibook dedicated computer question
Hi SteveSteve B wrote:hi Jon
i wouldnt be so quick to place the Star Beryl above the Yenos based solely upon the tests you and Cameron have developed
the Yenos do ponder while on the move and the SB does not
in a short time control this might not make a difference but in longer time controls it could have a significant impact
while one can argue that the ability to ponder is not really indicia of program strength and is merely a feature of the computer i can only say this
if a Yeno can defeat the SB in match play and the reason is due to its pondering ability .. then it cannot be said that the SB is the strongest 4k computer ever released for sale
as i of course have the SB as well i will pit these two against each other in the very near future
currently however i am in the middle of administering annual physicals to the "Excellence "Family of Fidelity computers starting from the 3Mhz EP12 all the way up to the Excel Mach IV (10 different models in all) so the Yeno-SB match ups have to wait their turn
So Many Computers..So Little Time Regards
Steve
I have no doubt at all that the Kittinger 4K program in the Star Beryl is far stronger than the Danielsen 4K programs in the Companion II / Explorer / Enterprise S / Tandy 1650 etc. and that it would also chew up a Concord II running at twice the speed. A big factor in this is available RAM, Danielsen only had 128 bytes to play with in his 4K programs while Kittinger has the luxury of 768 bytes. The Star Beryl sees tactics in seconds that Danielsen 4k programs can't even remotely anticipate given many minutes - and the Star Beryl program also seems a better positional player (although no 4K program is ever going to be a positional genius). The Yeno 430 XT and its brethren likewise would have their still beating CPUs torn out and eaten by Star Beryl in an orgy of destruction.
Kittinger rules on this one regards
Cameron