derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (11/25/85)
I recently bought a chess computer (reviewed somewhat inanely in a companion
article). I am wondering what people out there think are ways to get the most
out of it -- I hope to learn a great deal from it, and would be interested
in seeing how other people use chess computers as a training aid.
--
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arparay@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/26/85)
> I recently bought a chess computer (reviewed somewhat inanely in a companion > article). I am wondering what people out there think are ways to get the most > out of it -- I hope to learn a great deal from it, and would be interested > in seeing how other people use chess computers as a training aid. > > -- > Derek Zahn @ wisconsin > ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek > derek@wisc-rsch.arpa I purchased a CC9 several years ago. I am fairly happy with it. It has a somewhat limited opening book. Recently I purchased a 4mhz R65c02-4 and cranked my machine up from 1.4 mhz (factory setting) to 4.9mhz. It now plays at least several hundred points highter. I also purchased a new machine from Fidelity called the Excellence. The Excellence has a 3mhz clock. This machine has an "estimated rating?" of over 2000. As far as I can determine, the program is not significantly different than my 3 year old CC9. It is advertised as playing much better than the CC9. But this is due I believe to the higher clock (3 vs 1.4 mhz), not due to an improvement in it's program. My machine announced a mate in four against it with the settings fairly even. Anyone out there know if my evaluation of the Excellence is true?
brucec@tektronix.UUCP (Bruce Cheney) (01/16/86)
Chess Computers Ruined My Life
I used to be a 'chess fanatic', tournaments, postal matches, radio matches, a tournament director and organizer, newsletter editor, etc., etc. But then
around 1978, these cheap chess computers started coming out. At first they were
really bad players. But they started getting better. Now you can buy an expert level machine (>2000 USCF) for $100-200. About the same price as a high quality
scientific calculator. The tournament 'cheaters' (who used to run to their hotelrooms after you made a move to look it up in a book) now use the machines
throughout the whole game, instead of just cheating in the opening. Postal
players are starting to do the same thing (see the latest Chess Life).
Before hand-held calculators, I thought it would be useful and impressive
to be able to do square roots and logs in my head, or at least by hand. But
with the advent of the calculator, memorizing log tables seems like a real
waste of time. By analogy, busting my gut for years to become an expert also
seems like a real waste of time now that anyone can purchase the same capabilityfor $100.
tekcrd!brucectrb@haddock.UUCP (01/18/86)
/* brucec@tektronix in haddock:net.games.ches */ /* ---------- "Chess Computers" ---------- */ > Chess Computers Ruined My Life > > I used to be a 'chess fanatic', tournaments, postal matches, radio > matches, a tournament director and organizer, newsletter editor, etc., > etc. But then around 1978, these cheap chess computers started coming > out. Bruce, to me, a chess fanatic is a person who loves to play and study chess. Whether the moves are conveyed by mail, radio, or whatever, it's the moves that are important, not the conveyance. Directing tournaments, editing newsletters, being a chess federation official, etc, are commendable activities and they have nothing to do with chess, the game. Organizers often have to choose between organizing and playing. You grieve that tournament cheaters consult their chess toys now, along with their books. This doesn't change the game one whit, it just annoys tournament players and directors. How often does this happen? Rarely, I imagine. I never notice it, and I play in a few tournaments a year. A player certainly can't run off after every move (even at 30/90). If a player had the time to do so, he would certainly arouse suspicion. A cheater could always consult a friend if he cared to, the availability of resources really hasn't changed much. I'll agree that computers can help cheaters. I just don't think that your arguments support the implied assertion that computers hurt chess. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA 617-247-1155
brucec@tektronix.UUCP (Bruce Cheney) (01/21/86)
In article <102100007@haddock.UUCP> trb@haddock.UUCP writes: >Directing >tournaments, editing newsletters, being a chess federation official, >etc, are commendable activities and they have nothing to do with >chess, the game. > > Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA 617-247-1155 Well, Andrew, thanks for the reply. Your opinion is probably typical of most chess players, especially in regard to directing tournaments, editing newsletter, etc. This myopic and inaccurate assertion goes a long way towards explaining why chess is relatively unpopular in the US: most players lack the perspective to understand the relationship between the organization and promotion of an activity and the benefits that activity will receive. Therefore, few players take the time or effort to become TD's (or editors, etc.), because they don't understand what it has to do with "the game." (The true chess professional is the exception to this observation. He/she knows that it is not enough to just to play, they must organize, write, and promote if there is to be a future, not only for themselves but for chess.) Here's a question for you tournament players: Do you own the latest chess rulebook ? What ?? You play a game for money and you don't even know the rules ? Amazing ! And some people claim chess isn't gambling !! tekcrd!brucec