mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman <shulman>) (09/08/90)
Hello everyone! I am looking to buy a good chess program for my IBM PC. The 2 I am currently considering are Chessmaster 2100 and Sargon IV. If anybody can recommend one over the other, or knows of a program which is better then those two, please let me know. Thanks in advance! - Mike. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Shulman Internet: shulman@tinton.ccur.com UUCP: rutgers!petsd!pedsga!mikes
lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) (09/11/90)
>I am looking to buy a good chess program for my >IBM PC. The 2 I am currently considering are >Chessmaster 2100 and Sargon IV. If anybody can >recommend one over the other, or knows of a program >which is better then those two, please let me know. rec.arts.movies has something called the Frequently Asked Question List which is regularly posted and updated. If rec.games.chess had a similar regular feature, this would certainly be one of the first items on it. Opinion seems to be near universal that Chessmaster 2100 is a stronger player than Sargon IV, but there is also a growing number of reports from people who say that there are other programs available that are superior to either of these: Rexchess, Gnuchess, Zarkov, AI chess, M chess, etc. I understand that Stuart Cracraft has some involvement with those last four and I will let him give you the details for them. Rexchess is being developed by Larry Kaufman and the main distributer seems to be ICD (1-800-645-4710). I'm afraid that, at least as far as I know, there is no truely independent source for information on the relative strengths of all these programs. A typical problem that one encounters is illustrated by Computer Chess Reports that does undertake to report on the latest developments in chess-playing machines and programs. It is published by ICD and written by Kaufman. Another thing to keep in mind is that the performance of any one product will depend very much on the type of machine that is running the program. I understand that in the case of some of the programs like Sargon and Chessmaster, the program for the Mac, for example, may be completely different from the program sold under the same name for an IBM machine. This is why you will sometimes hear contradictory word-of-mouth reports about some of these programs.
6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Kent Perrier) (09/19/90)
In article <1399@pedsga.UUCP> mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman <shulman>) writes: >Hello everyone! > I am looking to buy a good chess program for my IBM PC. The 2 >I am currently considering are Chessmaster 2100 and Sargon IV. >If anybody can recommend one over the other, or knows of a program >which is better then those two, please let me know. > Thanks in advance! > - Mike. >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mike Shulman >Internet: shulman@tinton.ccur.com >UUCP: rutgers!petsd!pedsga!mikes I would recommend Chessmaster 2100. I have it and I like it a lot. That's my opinion, at least. Kent Perrier 6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu @ucsbuxa.BITNET
DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu (09/19/90)
If would like to have a compitent chess player with great graphics and sou nd, there's always Battle Chess. It can be a challenging game when set on the upper levels of play, it gives you something to watch while waiting for those l ong, drawn out moves, and it is a neat novelty program. Beyond that, the price isn't bad either...
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (09/20/90)
>In article <1399@pedsga.UUCP> mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman <shulman>) writes: >> I am looking to buy a good chess program for my IBM PC. The 2 >>I am currently considering are Chessmaster 2100 and Sargon IV. >>If anybody can recommend one over the other, or knows of a program >>which is better then those two, please let me know. >> Thanks in advance! If you insist on _buying_ one, go ahead. However, why not give the recent DOS port of GNUCHESS at try? Sure, its character based interface is simplistic, but you also get full C source code. Also, I know from personal experience that there is at least one (possibly unreleased) EGA/VGA graphics version. And, I read in comp.windows.ms that there is an MS Windows version, but I have not actually seen it. Stuart Cracraft, a frequent poster to this group, should have all the details on DOS GNUCHESS. Tom Rombouts Torrance Techie tomr@ashtate.A-T.com V:(213)538-7108
ron@woan (Ronald S. Woan) (09/20/90)
In article <1248@ashton.UUCP>, tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: >In article <1399@pedsga.UUCP> mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman <shulman>) writes: >> I am looking to buy a good chess program for my IBM PC. The 2 I am >>currently considering are Chessmaster 2100 and Sargon IV. If >>anybody can recommend one over the other, or knows of a program >>which is better then those two, please let me know. >> Thanks in advance! Tom> If you insist on _buying_ one, go ahead. However, why not give Tom> the recent DOS port of GNUCHESS at try? Sure, its character Tom> based interface is simplistic, but you also get full C source Tom> code. I'd like to second the recommendation to try GNU Chess.. It isn't as slick as the two commercial products mentioned because it lacks features like historical replay and stuff, but it is basically as strong from reports in gnu.chess... I own Sargon 3 and Chessmaster 2100 and find that both are good for teaching tools, but GNU Chess for MS Win 3.0 (on cica.cica.indiana.edu in pub/pc/win3/games?) is the one I play the most these days while downloading files or reading news... Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@peyote.cactus.org or woan@austin.iinus1.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
pals@inland.com (09/25/90)
Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. RexChess is a good candidate for best (strongest) PC chess program. It plays a good 150 points or so above Chessmaster. Also, AI Chess looks promising but I have little information on it. For the complete scoop on computer chess, call ICD corporation at 800-645- 4710 and order their latest issue of Computer Chess Reports for $1.95. It has unbiased ratings of all chess playing computers and software.
ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) (09/27/90)
In article <85.26ff813b@inland.com> pals@inland.com writes: >Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it >and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly >misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, >maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. Where did you get the idea that Chessmaster 2000 or 2100 had any kind of rating at all let alone one of 1900 or 2000? If it was as high as 2000 then you shouldn't feel ripped off. A rating this high for home computers is very respectable. But I seriously doubt that Chessmaster is as high as 1900 or 2000. Do you have any documentation that says these are the official USCF ratings? ray
lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) (09/27/90)
pals@inland.com wrote: >Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it >and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly >misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, >maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. Ray Frank writes: >Where did you get the idea that Chessmaster 2000 or 2100 had any kind of >rating at all let alone one of 1900 or 2000? ... Do you have any documentation >that says these are the official USCF ratings? Mr. Frank, I do not think that you read the note correctly. pals@inland.com was obviously only giving us his own estimate of the strength of Chessmaster 2100. You may disagree with that estimate, but don't try to make people think that he was claiming to present an "official USCF rating". He obviously was not. His main point was that "2100 is a terribly misleading name" and I agree with that.
root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) (09/28/90)
In article <Ib0W=dW00WI_4xK0V5@andrew.cmu.edu>, lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes: > pals@inland.com wrote: > >Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it > >and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly > >misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, > >maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. If it gains 100 or more points going from an XT to an AT (a CPU speedup around 2.5 or 3) then you should try it on a contemporary system. I just looked at a current ad (Computer Currents) which lists a complete monochrome 33MHz (cached) 80386 system with 40MB hard disk for $1895 -- a lot less than that XT started out to be. That will give about a factor of 5 speedup over the AT. And for the price those XTs and ATs were you can get a i486/25 machine for another factor of 2. Now, how does 2100 look? > His main point was that "2100 is a terribly misleading name" and I > agree with that. Well, calling it _Chessmaster_ clearly implies that it plays at master level as much as the 2100 implies a USCF rating. Thos Sumner Internet: thos@cca.ucsf.edu (The I.G.) UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos BITNET: thos@ucsfcca U.S. Mail: Thos Sumner, Computer Center, Rm U-76, UCSF San Francisco, CA 94143-0704 USA I hear nothing in life is certain but death and taxes -- and they're working on death. #include <disclaimer.std>
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (09/28/90)
pals@inland.com wrote:
>misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points,
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I read on the package that 2100 was its
strength on a 20 MHtz 386 computer.
Michael
===============================================================================
Michael L. Kaufman \\ "I painted her with tar and touched her off and watched
kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu \\ her blaze away...How love's old embers burn!" D Marquis
===============================================================================ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) (09/29/90)
In article <Ib0W=dW00WI_4xK0V5@andrew.cmu.edu> lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes: >pals@inland.com wrote: >>Chessmaster 2100 is hardly any improvement over the 2000. I bought it >>and felt terribly ripped off. Ditto Sargon IV. Also, 2100 is a terribly >>misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, >>maybe 2000 or a bit more on an AT. > >Ray Frank writes: >>Where did you get the idea that Chessmaster 2000 or 2100 had any kind of >>rating at all let alone one of 1900 or 2000? ... Do you have any documentation >>that says these are the official USCF ratings? > >Mr. Frank, I do not think that you read the note correctly. pals@inland.com >was obviously only giving us his own estimate of the strength of Chessmaster >2100. You may disagree with that estimate, but don't try to make people think >that he was claiming to present an "official USCF rating". He obviously was >not. His main point was that "2100 is a terribly misleading name" and I >agree with that. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit. But most of the chess computers out there today are being sold with manufacturers 'claims' of strengh of their product. Why do you think Radio Shack labels their chess computers as 2150 or 1850, etc? And why do you think that the PC chess programs are called Chessmaster 2000 or 2100? It is to give people the impression that this is their rating or close to their rating when in fact there is not the smallest bit of evidence from these companies to merit such rating estimates. So naturally if someone says that they think that this or that computer has this or that rating I cry fowl and say put up or shutup. Either get the machine officially rated or don't make false assumptions and wild claims regarding its strength. The fact that the above poster says that he feels ripped off because Chessmaster 2100 in fact does not play 2100 rated chess proves my point. This false and misleading advertising sells products. There are very few comsumer items out there that can be given virtually absolute numbers for comparison purposes. Cars can't, TV's can't, etc. If Chevy says their car is better than Fords there is no real way to prove it. It is just pure advertising bullshit. But chess computers can be given fairly accurate ratings which tells the consumer which is best and which is not. My point is that if a computer is not officially rated it is a mere bag of shells and any claim to fame is pure misleading bullshit by the companies and sometimes even by the owners themselves. Comsumers should try and realize that not only are the oil companies and Iraqs out to rip us off but also too are the chess computer manufacturers with their false claims and misleading advertisments of their products. ray
pals@inland.com (09/29/90)
I am posting this followup as added information/counterpoint
to the followups posted by Ray Frank, Thos Sumner, and Michael
Kaufman on this issue. Take a deep breath, and we're off!
1. WHO DOES THE RATING? Mr. Frank brought up the issue of "official"
ratings of chess computers/software. The person I have come to
trust on this issue is IM Larry Kaufman, who writes for Computer
Chess Reports, published by ICD Corp. He has done a great deal of
work in rating chess machines, and I couldn't possibly begin to go
into all he has discovered here. Kaufman understands the need for
but distrusts ratings of computers based on playing humans, and has
an in-depth discussion of the USCF's official Computer Rating Agency
(C.R.A.) in the Fall/Winter 1988-1989 Computer Chess Reports. A
couple of flaws he points out: C.R.A. Ratings of computers are
positively correlated with the number of tournament rounds played in
a day (people tire, computers don't). Also, if manufacturers don't
like the C.R.A. rating they get, they can simply retest. This
allows them to keep retesting until perhaps they get lucky and get a
rating they like. Kaufman plays machines against each other. He
also checks his results against those of leading European testers.
He discusses his methods at length in the above-mentioned issue of
C.C.R. (you can try to get a copy from ICD at 1-800-645-4710).
2. CHESSMASTER 2100. My biggest gripe with CM 2100 is that I already
had CM 2000 and (quite justifiably) expected an improvement in
playing strength. I didn't get one. To quote Kaufman, CM 2100 is
"an improvement of only 25 points or so over CM 2000". His rating
of CM 2100 on a 10MHz XT is 1825 (USCF rating points), and 2010 on a
25 MHz 286. Kaufman says "to reach the 2100 level would probably
require at least a 33 MHz 386 machine with cache". At least when I
bought it, Software Toolworks had no such label on the box. Kaufman
also writes "I would like to warn readers about misleading ads by
Software Toolworks for CM 2100. It is claimed to have 'substantially
the same program that earned a 2325 rating in the World Open.' "
But "when Software Toolworks attempted to translate the Fidelity
68000 program [the one that earned the 2325 rating] to IBM PC code,
they found that it played even weaker than CM 2000." So, Software
Toolworks chose only to "upgrade" the CM 2000 into the 2100. My
final shot from Kaufman - "It may be a slight improvement over the
CM 2000, but the claimed 2100 (never mind the 2325!) is only
achievable on a fast 386 machine."
3. SARGON IV. I'll be as brief as possible. Kaufman calls Sargon IV
"a disgrace." One more sentence - "Sargon IV seems weaker than its
predecessor Sargon III, and should never have been released."
4. MODERN MACHINES. In response to Mr. Sumner's comments - of course,
I agree that CM 2100 would look increasingly good on hotter
machines. Shoot, if we ran it on a CRAY, it might be a master. But
its showing is poor compared to the software below. I would also
point out that even though fast PCs are getting cheaper, there are
"billions" of us out here who bought XTs and early (slower) ATs a
few years back, and can't afford to trash them just yet.
5. RexChess. Kaufman estimates this at 2177 USCF running on an 25 MHz
286 or a 20 MHz 386. This is 167 points above CM 2100.
6. AI Chess. Kaufman estimates this at over 2300 (!) on a 20 MHz 386,
a whopping 290 points above CM 2100. He rates it a "strong Expert"
(lets call this 2100+) on a 10 MHz XT (8088). But he says "the
graphics are still awful and the price still excessive."
Whew! This was fun! And I still think the name "Chessmaster 2100"
is misleading.
Randy Palsaceverj@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Jaap Verhage) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep28.194112.18406@cs.rochester.edu> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: [...] >fact does not play 2100 rated chess proves my point. This false and >misleading advertising sells products. >There are very few comsumer items out there that can be given virtually >absolute numbers for comparison purposes. Cars can't, TV's can't, etc. >If Chevy says their car is better than Fords there is no real way to >prove it. It is just pure advertising bullshit. But chess computers can >be given fairly accurate ratings which tells the consumer which is best >and which is not. My point is that if a computer is not officially rated it >is a mere bag of shells and any claim to fame is pure misleading bullshit by >the companies and sometimes even by the owners themselves. >Comsumers should try and realize that not only are the oil companies and >Iraqs out to rip us off but also too are the chess computer manufacturers >with their false claims and misleading advertisments of their products. Whoa, whoa ... I believe that `the West' (the so-called `developed countries') has been `ripping off' `the East' and `the South' (the so-called `undeveloped' or `underdeveloped' countries) a whole lot more, and for a far longer time, than the other way around. However, as to misleading advertising, I completely agree. If I were the person in power (let's be glad I'm not), advertising per se would completely vanish and, let's say, `informising' would take its place. No-one would be allowed to claim anything that couldn't be easily proved. No-one would be allowed to make meaningless assertions like `we're the best' or `we make the best'. Imagine: how would it be to read a BYTE and simply to believe what the ads say? Not to need to filter the substantial information from all the hype? To me, that would be *quite* agreeable. What I want is information about a product, not fantasies intended to ram it down my throat. Oh, well; maybe I should go live on an uninhabited island? -- Regards, Jaap. Jaap Verhage, Academic Computer Centre, State University at Utrecht, Holland. aceverj@cc.ruu.nl +<-*|*->+ I claim *every*thing and speak for myself
shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Michael Shackelford) (10/01/90)
In article <103.2703c1f5@inland.com> pals@inland.com writes: > > 2. CHESSMASTER 2100. My biggest gripe with CM 2100 is that I already > had CM 2000 and (quite justifiably) expected an improvement in > playing strength. I didn't get one. To quote Kaufman, CM 2100 is > "an improvement of only 25 points or so over CM 2000". His rating > of CM 2100 on a 10MHz XT is 1825 (USCF rating points), and 2010 on a > 25 MHz 286. Kaufman says "to reach the 2100 level would probably > require at least a 33 MHz 386 machine with cache". [...] You (and the other posters who complain about strength) must be very strong players indeed! I have no complaints about CM2100's strength relative to my own (it is about 250 points higher -- perfect for now), and for me the REAL reason to go from CM2000 to CM2100 was obvious -- CM2000 had a nasty habit of CRASHING my system, and even when it didn't CRASH, it required me to boot from floppy because it was incompatible with several TSR's I run with. I have not observed either of these problems with CM2100. Additionally, I find CM2100 easier to use, and its opening library is much improved. When the predecessor program is difficult to keep running, I can accept a failure to substantially improve strength if the new program WORKS. David Shackelford | shack@cs.arizona.edu | USCF member
ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) (10/01/90)
In article <773@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> aceverj@accucx.UUCP (Jaap Verhage) writes: >In article <1990Sep28.194112.18406@cs.rochester.edu> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: >[...] >>Comsumers should try and realize that not only are the oil companies and >>Iraqs out to rip us off but also too are the chess computer manufacturers >>with their false claims and misleading advertisments of their products. >Whoa, whoa ... I believe that `the West' (the so-called `developed >countries') has been `ripping off' `the East' and `the South' (the >so-called `undeveloped' or `underdeveloped' countries) a whole lot >more, and for a far longer time, than the other way around. > >Regards, Jaap. We are all intitled to our opinions. My opinion is that without the West 'ripping' off the Middle East countries, they would not have even one well dug with their backward technology. We digg`em and they nationalize them. They've been payed good for their oil considering it was built with western technology and western money and western materials. I wish some oil company would rip me off by digging a well in my back yard and strike oil and let me sell it back to them, and all without one penny invested from me. ray
jcsewell@disk.UUCP (jcsewell) (10/09/90)
In article <12679@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >pals@inland.com wrote: (Chessmaster 2100 is a) >>misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, > >I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I read on the package that 2100 was its >strength on a 20 MHtz 386 computer. > The box I have brags that they took Chessmaster 2000, added 10 man years of work... that Fidelity Electronics is the "developers of the world's Only USCF Certified Master Rated (2325) Chess Program!!!" ... Lots of doubletalk and impress-me phrases, but nothing solid about the end product itself. <sigh> -- J.C. Sewell DISK: Digital Information Systems of Kentucky uunet!disk!jcsewell (502) 968-5401 thru 968-5406 "Abortion is killing babies; it's killing lives." - Michael Peace Matthew 11:12 Christian Rapper
cracraft@mole.ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft) (10/12/90)
In article <4252@disk.UUCP> jcsewell@disk.UUCP (jcsewell) writes: In article <12679@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >pals@inland.com wrote: (Chessmaster 2100 is a) >>misleading name. On a PC XT the program runs about 1900 USCF rating points, > >I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I read on the package that 2100 was its >strength on a 20 MHtz 386 computer. > The box I have brags that they took Chessmaster 2000, added 10 man years of work... that Fidelity Electronics is the "developers of the world's Only USCF Certified Master Rated (2325) Chess Program!!!" ... Lots of doubletalk and impress-me phrases, but nothing solid about the end product itself. <sigh> -- J.C. Sewell DISK: Digital Information Systems of Kentucky uunet!disk!jcsewell (502) 968-5401 thru 968-5406 "Abortion is killing babies; it's killing lives." - Michael Peace Matthew 11:12 Christian Rapper International Master Larry Kaufman estimates it would take a 33mhz 386 with zero wait state to run on before Chessmaster 2100 would play at the 2100 level. On an XT, he says its something like 1750! The story of the Chessmaster 2100 box rating of 2325 is complicated. Originally Fidelity, in the form of programmers Dan and Kathe Spracklen, had a good program called the Mach 3 which achieved a 2265 rating on a 68000 and a 2325 rating on a 68020. Software Toolworks, the authors of the Chessmaster 2100 program, bought out, purchased, or got rights to the 2325 program for purposes of running it on a different (Intel) architecture. The port was done, but just about everyone I know, and Larry all feel the Chessmaster 2100 program is no where near as strong as the Mach 3 on a 680020 (called the Mach 4). I'll take a moment to plug a program called "M Chess". It is an IBM (Intel) based program. But its forebears (earlier versions of the same code) managed to defeat IM John Grefe in across the board tournament time control play, and achieve a 2500+ performance rating over a short series of games at the U.S. Amateur Team last year (all of the above while running on a 386 chip under DOS.) Recently M Chess played the programs Rex (version 2.3) by Kaufman and Zarkov (version 2.05) by Stanback. These two programs ran on 12mhz 386's while M Chess was purposely handicapped to a 4.77mhz XT. The score was 4w-2d-0l and 4w-0d-0l in M Chess's favor. Also, M Chess played and defeated Mephisto Polgar which ran on high speed bit-sliced configuration. The margin was about 3-1. M was running on a 25mhz 486 so both programs were running on fast hardware. And a forebear of M defeated Mephisto Portorose 9.5-6.5 in tests by Larry Kaufman. Against Fidelity Mach 3 at 40/2, the score is 6-0 M's favor. Against Mephisto Mondial, the score is 3-1, M's favor, etc. Anyway if you want information about M, contact The Computer Chess Gazette at 714-770-8532... Stuart