Chess Game Graphics

[+slx]

Last version imho looks best and maybe make colors user selectable. As most of the 'thinking' probably takes place while the user is pondering his next move, a reduced display probably doesn't work.

[+MrFish]

Maybe you can start with the simple First Chess

https://manillismo.blogspot.cl/2016/01/first-chess-cc65.html

 

Thanks, I did see that one on the Wiki already: Chess Programming - First Chess

 

 

Colossus Chess is far the best player (not the gfx)

https://manillismo.blogspot.cl/search/label/ajedrez

 

Has Colossus been put up against ChessMaster 2000?

[Irgendwer]

I wonder if a port of "The Fidelity Ultimate Chess Challenge" from the Lynx would be worth a try...?

 

[devwebcl]

 

Thanks, I did see that one on the Wiki already: Chess Programming - First Chess

 

 

 

Has Colossus been put up against ChessMaster 2000?

 

I didn't finish that game (although I made the code for it, probably I should have left TODOs)

 

Anyway, I found a page of a c64 doing the same: http://chesstroid.blogspot.cl/2014/08/c64-revisited-chessmaster-2100-and.html

and CC is the winner against CM2k

[+MrFish]

I found a chess site for the C64 -- which has many of the same games for the Atari -- that has engine ratings. They should be the same.

 

 

Sargon III

 

"Elo 1569"

 

 

ChessMaster 2000

 

"The manufacturer rated the game at 2000 Elo USCF, in reality it plays at approximately 1550-1600 Elo (1750 -1800 USCF)."

 

 

Colossus 4

 

"The approximate rating for COLOSSUS CHESS 4.0 is 1650 - 1750 ELO (1850 - 1950 USCF)."

 

 

So, yes, Colossus 4 is at the top of the heap, although they are all capable of playing a good game of chess.

 

Nice humor with ChessMaster 2000 using it's supposed and erroneous Elo rating in its name.

Edited August 5, 2017 by MrFish

[+MrFish]

Anyway, I found a page of a c64 doing the same: http://chesstroid.blogspot.cl/2014/08/c64-revisited-chessmaster-2100-and.html

and CC is the winner against CM2k

 

Ah, you beat me to posting about it...

[+slx]

As for the actual chess piece movement user interface, I always liked Odesta Chess.

[snicklin]

I'm a good player of chess, I was the best player in my school at one point, but I am no grandmaster or anything like that.

 

When playing any of the 8-bit Chess games of the day, they'd still beat me most of the time. I don't think that it is important that someone makes the best chess playing game, just one that we're not going to beat every time ourselves.

[Irgendwer]

So, yes, Colossus 4 is at the top of the heap, although they are all capable of playing a good game of chess.

 

Yes, but "The Fidelity Ultimate Chess Challenge" is rated 2325 Elo which was the reason for my suggestion. Together with your graphics this would be a very cool combination...

[+CharlieChaplin]

As for the actual chess piece movement user interface, I always liked Odesta Chess.

 

Me too (Odesta Chess also known as Chess 7.0). And there is also the PD/Freeware/Shareware chess named Querg/SuperQuerg Chess with very simple gfx but as stated by its author with quite good ELO (author is John White, not Jeff Lynne)...

 

http://a8.fandal.cz/search.php?search=Chess&butt_details_x=

 

However, for one of my children I always choose an easy A8 chess version, like Atari Chess, Parker Chess, Master Chess or (Compute) Chess by John Krause.

Edited August 5, 2017 by CharlieChaplin

[+MrFish]

Yes, but "The Fidelity Ultimate Chess Challenge" is rated 2325 Elo which was the reason for my suggestion. Together with your graphics this would be a very cool combination...

 

I saw that on Wikipedia, but I was having a hard time validating it elsewhere. Any other sources for this rating?

[Irgendwer]

 

I saw that on Wikipedia, but I was having a hard time validating it elsewhere. Any other sources for this rating?

 

The box scan here:

http://atariage.com/box_page.php?SoftwareLabelID=1914

?

[+MrFish]

The box scan here:

http://atariage.com/box_page.php?SoftwareLabelID=1914

?

 

That seems to be worded quite ambiguously to me.

[+MrFish]

I'm a good player of chess, I was the best player in my school at one point, but I am no grandmaster or anything like that.

 

When playing any of the 8-bit Chess games of the day, they'd still beat me most of the time. I don't think that it is important that someone makes the best chess playing game, just one that we're not going to beat every time ourselves.

 

No, probably not necessary. I'm not saying it should beat or even match the best available, but there's not much satisfaction in producing a poor chess program. Level of play can always be adjusted to accomodate players. We're really just having a look at what's out there at this point.

[snicklin]

 

No, probably not necessary. I'm not saying it should beat or even match the best available, but there's not much satisfaction in producing a poor chess program. Level of play can always be adjusted to accomodate players. We're really just having a look at what's out there at this point.

 

Has anyone mentioned Master Chess from Mastertronic yet?

[devwebcl]

 

Me too (Odesta Chess also known as Chess 7.0). And there is also the PD/Freeware/Shareware chess named Querg/SuperQuerg Chess with very simple gfx but as stated by its author with quite good ELO (author is John White, not Jeff Lynne)...

 

http://a8.fandal.cz/search.php?search=Chess&butt_details_x=

 

However, for one of my children I always choose an easy A8 chess version, like Atari Chess, Parker Chess, Master Chess or (Compute) Chess by John Krause.

 

I don't think SuperQuerg has good ELO, I made it play against CC 4.1 and didn't have any chance at all.

http://manillismo.blogspot.cl/2013/01/superquerg-vs-colossus-chess-40.html

[+MrFish]

Has anyone mentioned Master Chess from Mastertronic yet?

 

C64 - Master Chess

[+MrFish]

...CC 4.1...

 

The subject of whether or not there was an actual version 4.1 (AA Thread: Colossus Chess on Atarimania) is what recently got me started being interested in the various chess games on the Atari and attempting something graphical myself.

Edited August 6, 2017 by MrFish

[devwebcl]

Yes, I remember before that post someone cleared that 4.1 was a crack from 4.0.

 

Still I think you should try a simple engine first then a more complex. At the end to get an ELO is a hard task.

[+MrFish]

Still I think you should try a simple engine first then a more complex. At the end to get an ELO is a hard task.

 

Sure, the learning has to at least start somewhere. There is source code available for the intent of doing just that: teaching the basics of writing a chess playing program. I'm speaking more about the intended end result when I talk about not wanting to produce a poor chess playing program. That doesn't mean preliminary attempts shouldn't or won't happen.

[Irgendwer]

 

That seems to be worded quite ambiguously to me.

 

Well, if they are able to produce a 65C02 ELO of at least 1801 (2000) in 1985 (http://www.spacious-mind.com/html/excellence_version_a.html)

an ELO of "2325" in 1991 sounds somewhat possible. It should be higher than CC 4.0 anyway.

Who has the time to let them compete against each other?

[+MrFish]

Well, if they are able to produce a 65C02 ELO of at least 1801 (2000) in 1985 (http://www.spacious-mind.com/html/excellence_version_a.html)

an ELO of "2325" in 1991 sounds somewhat possible. It should be higher than CC 4.0 anyway.

 

Yes, possible, but what you're showing here opens up the possibility that they just recycled code from 1985 too.

[Rybags]

All this talk of ELOs, couldn't resist:

 

[ClausB]

I prefer your 160-pixel displays. The colors are lovely and you did a fine job on the 3-pixel characters. I also like your HP display in the other thread.

[+MrFish]

I prefer your 160-pixel displays. The colors are lovely and you did a fine job on the 3-pixel characters. I also like your HP display in the other thread.

 

Thanks. There are some other color combinations that work out good too, but I like that one quite a bit.