Thursday, September 09, 2004
More on chess
On the first IBM-compatible PC I ever got -- a Tandy 1000EX from Radio Shack -- I used to play the first edition of Chessmaster.
Back then, I rarely beat the computer. Not surprising -- there was no scalable difficulty, so the computer was always doing its utmost to defeat me, and rarely blundering. I, on the other hand, was a veritable catalog of blunders. I flatter myself that I'm a wee bit better these days.
But that program had a very special twitch: any time I would start to win a game, it would lock up the computer. It was not, apparently, programmed to lose, so when it saw that I had established an overwhelming superiority of material and position, it would throw the machine equivalent of a temper-tantrum, and I'd have to reboot -- a process almost as time-consuming and laborious on 1985's technology as it is on 2004's.
I managed to get the computer to admit its defeat on about five occasions that I can think of, and only by sneaking up on mate in such a way that it surprised the computer before it could enter Six Year-Old Emulation Mode. (Of course, when it had me on the ropes -- which was nine games out of ten -- the program performed flawlessly from e4 to "Checkmate. Sorry, you lost. Try again!")
Of course, it didn't really matter if the computer electronically threw the board against the wall, because there was no record kept of victories. No points were awarded, no ratings or rankings parceled out. When I beat the computer, I knew it, and that was all that mattered.
But now I have Chessmaster 10th Edition. And if I thought the program had, in the intervening two decades, matured to the point where it could accept losses, I was wrong.
Last night, as I played against the personality "Lisa," a Young Democrat with a 1006 rating (against my 800-something), it became painfully clear that I was going to win. And not only win, but WIN. "Lisa" had squandered an early advantage with a couple of horrible moves that I had ruthlessly exploited (as we Republicans are wont) to gain an insuperable material and positional advantage and pull within a move or two of mate...
...whereupon Chessmaster threw a fit and locked up.
Back in the day, I wouldn't have minded, because I would've known I'd won, whether the computer admitted it or not. But Tenth Edition keeps track of victories and defeats, and awards points, and it denied me my points!
I guess it was getting back at me for the times I've shut it down when it was about to win.
So, tonight, the rematch. I'm confident. I've beaten her before, I'll beat her again... and then, it's "Josh Waitzkin" at eight years old.
I'm not nearly so confident about that one.
|
Back then, I rarely beat the computer. Not surprising -- there was no scalable difficulty, so the computer was always doing its utmost to defeat me, and rarely blundering. I, on the other hand, was a veritable catalog of blunders. I flatter myself that I'm a wee bit better these days.
But that program had a very special twitch: any time I would start to win a game, it would lock up the computer. It was not, apparently, programmed to lose, so when it saw that I had established an overwhelming superiority of material and position, it would throw the machine equivalent of a temper-tantrum, and I'd have to reboot -- a process almost as time-consuming and laborious on 1985's technology as it is on 2004's.
I managed to get the computer to admit its defeat on about five occasions that I can think of, and only by sneaking up on mate in such a way that it surprised the computer before it could enter Six Year-Old Emulation Mode. (Of course, when it had me on the ropes -- which was nine games out of ten -- the program performed flawlessly from e4 to "Checkmate. Sorry, you lost. Try again!")
Of course, it didn't really matter if the computer electronically threw the board against the wall, because there was no record kept of victories. No points were awarded, no ratings or rankings parceled out. When I beat the computer, I knew it, and that was all that mattered.
But now I have Chessmaster 10th Edition. And if I thought the program had, in the intervening two decades, matured to the point where it could accept losses, I was wrong.
Last night, as I played against the personality "Lisa," a Young Democrat with a 1006 rating (against my 800-something), it became painfully clear that I was going to win. And not only win, but WIN. "Lisa" had squandered an early advantage with a couple of horrible moves that I had ruthlessly exploited (as we Republicans are wont) to gain an insuperable material and positional advantage and pull within a move or two of mate...
...whereupon Chessmaster threw a fit and locked up.
Back in the day, I wouldn't have minded, because I would've known I'd won, whether the computer admitted it or not. But Tenth Edition keeps track of victories and defeats, and awards points, and it denied me my points!
I guess it was getting back at me for the times I've shut it down when it was about to win.
So, tonight, the rematch. I'm confident. I've beaten her before, I'll beat her again... and then, it's "Josh Waitzkin" at eight years old.
I'm not nearly so confident about that one.
Comments:
Post a Comment
