🗨️ _Start a conversation not a fire. This happy corner of the world was born from childhood nostalgia. Comment with kindness. Thank you :-)_ 🆕 Check out the new rematch with both apps at top skill levels!: ruclips.net/video/B5Vu-97b3y8/видео.html ❓FAQ: 1. "This isn't about computers it's about A.I., or it's only a test of speed, etc." I explain this at 4:23. You gotta watch the video before commenting on the video ;-) 2. I realize 10^123 is more than double the atoms in the universe. I was trying to say the power of figure is double but it came out badly 🤦♂️FML 3. When we said that move was dated what we saw on our smaller CRT TV was the King going in for a cuddle then bludgeoning the Queen to death. Showing "domestic violence" as a "joke" in video games doesn't happen today and is what we thought was "dated". BUT, what we didn't see at the time was her pulling a knife. Bad Queen! So it was actually self defense! - What's your theory on the final result? Low Mac Elo? Fluke? Peri's law? ;-) Comment below!
@@mrdaxtercrane Yeah I realized afterwards. Still, there's something nice about not being offered updates. Though I see the value of them too. Different worlds...
Retro Recipes, ELO score changes over the years. Amiga's playing at ELO 1600 from 1987, for example, is about 1300-1450 in today's (the year 2020) ELO score. The ELO score increases in time. Some say that top chess players from the mid-1980s - Karpov, Kasparov, Garatolij Karparov :-) & others - for the same level of playing would be rated at a lower ELO today (say 2600 instead of 2850 from mid-1980s). World champs from 1920-30s, imagine this, would be at a level of a FIDE master or international-master (IM) today (ELO 2300-2400), which is below today's Grandmasters (GM) level! They could not even compete for the world's champion title! In your test, you should lower the ELO rating on a 2020 Mac to 1400, to "roughly" match Amiga's ELO 1600 from 1987. Chessmaster 2000 play was a fair match because ELO was somewhat adjusted; Chessmaster's ELO 2000 matches modern ELO 1850. Sargon should definitely be readjusted because HiArcs is a modern beast. Perhaps you can do another video with adjusted ELO scores, at least for Mac Chess vs Amiga? It would be interesting to see. (I don't have Amiga anymore so I can't try).
I actually have to agree with "Peri's Law". There are masterful strategies being used these days, but the way Chess is played changes as time goes on. In 10 or 20 years, programs have been changed and "think" in different ways than they used to. Older Chess programs ran on computers that had much tighter limits so the programs code had to be very lean & clean in order to be playable. Today's code and coding methods are much less lean by comparison. Some are even down-right sloppy. I'm actually surprised the C64 didn't win the match.
@@thecaptain2281 That could be said for some programs, but not for HiArcs, Stockfish, Leela or their sorts; such modern algorithms (some are open source) take into account an insane number of things. In the test by Retro Recipes, Chessmaster on Amiga could score against 3D on Mac because the ELO score on a Mac program was somewhat lower, which matches the Amiga program's ELO from 20 years ago. At what level of computer chess we have come today, check the description for AlphaZero and what it runs on; it taught ITSELF to play chess at a superhuman level in less than 4 hours, WITHOUT any reference to historic games, books for openings or endings, etc. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero
One of my favourite comedy one liners, is from Tim Vine: "I had dinner with chess champion Gary Casparov the other night. We had a checkered tablecloth and it took him 2hours to pass the salt"
If you match ELO ratings, all you're doing is discovering which engine has the most conservative ELO replication. Just set everything on the most badass settings!
This was my thought as well - you're not really testing much by setting the ELOs the same. A much better test would be to whack them all up to maximum and try again (possibly emulating the Amiga on far faster hardware to mitigate the time issue.)
@@bijelodugme5935 re AI, many people would consider computer chess an AI challenge. As time goes on, however, techniques developed in AI research become commonplace in computer science. So "AI" becomes only the frontier. Is deep learning AI? give a few years and people probably won't think of it that way anymore.
They probably let Jonny Ive go as he was trying to make the keyboard get thinner to the point of vanishing completely. The keyboard area would then become a touch screen and your Macbook Pro would become a giant Nintendo DS.
Hi, I just wanted to write you a quick real message to say that I’m incredibly grateful you have chosen to support us in this way. It really does help the content continue. Cheers! Your friend in retro, Perifractic
same but what really shocked me was how quickly I got sick to death of the 3D when I thought that was the most amazing idea ever initially. I have shunned all attempts at clever 3D views of chess ever since. You just can't beat that simple 2D view.
This was the video sent to me that got me into your channel. I wonder if I would have stumbled across it later through David's channel. I've only gotten back onto emulation recently but like all the content. I actually fell for the chicken lips video because of the tone difference in Australia, the rule is it ends by midday. Love the voice over booth, it's where I shoot all my captains log videos
@@RetroRecipes watching is the easy part, thank you for uploading all the entertaining and informative videos. Would you consider dong a tutorial video for those that us Retroarch only VS other stand alone emulators??? I'm only able to get double sided disc and tape games for the Commodore 64 because I was lucky enough to guess that these roms would be patched and run as single files in cartridge rom format?? I imagine there are so many others stuck on this. it started with me running Commadore 64 and Amiga games using retroArch on my hacked snes mini at the time, So it's the exact same now that I'm a retropie user long side my hacked snes mini. So the same think would apply for many other retroarch uses being using a pi, a hacked snes mini, hacked xbox, hacked ps3. You would be helping a lot of people that don't have the know-how or are unable to resource for themselves original hardware, or multiple mini consoles. i know the Retropie scene isn't your area but I'm suggesting Retroarch in general and covering across the board, you will be helping a lot of people showing people that they have more options with what's available to them at present time! thanks again!
@@foghornleghorn5882 Thanks for the suggestion. Apart from THEA500 Mini which makes things simple and fun I generally am not a fan of emulators. I find it tricky to make videos I’m not passionate about so that would be quite far down the list. 😞
The 1st game had a really unusual opening never ever seen in modern professional chess these days called 'The Albin counter gambit'. I noticed the Mac actually initiated this opening not the amiga program...this opening was popular in the 19th century, the age of romanticism. The 2nd game the mac played an opening called 'The modern' which is g6 after e4, an opening that is still popular today. It is called the modern because black intends to allow white to build a large pawn centre than attack it from the wings...hence g6 fianchettoing the bishop...this strategy is known as 'hypermodern' play and emerged in the 1920's or so. The 3rd game Sargon plays 'Birds opening' again a rare opening these days in the top flight....the most exciting answer to f4 is the reply e5 (the From gambit) which can lead to extremely wild play, but these days d5 is played usually by the top players.
Oddly enough, i almost beat the chess guru teacher at chess club in high school by using what I now to be The Albin Gambit, and at the end he told me that I made 1 mistake otherwise I would've played a perfect game and had him in checkmate. So I performed the Far Q Maneuver and left the room for a cigarette.
Young adults seeing Battle Chess in 2020: "Hey, that's like in Harry Potter!" Adults watching Harry Potter in 2001: "Hey, that's like Battle Chess!" Teenagers seeing Battle Chess in The 1980s: "Hey, that's like the chess board from The Millennium Falcon! Adults seeing Battle Chess in The 1980s: "Hey, that's not like the 3-D chess Kirk and Spock used to play!"
i am "young" adult (25yo) and I played Battle Chess like 10-15 years ago with my friend on elementary school, so i wasn't surprised or compering it to Harry Potter (wich i watched many times) ...but i think you are on point anyway :)
Stephen Thomas I don’t get this. I’ve watched all the Kirk Star Trek films and seen all the OG TV series, and I don’t remember them playing chess, perhaps a single time, but not more than that. I thought it was something that only really happened in TNG
Casper S� I can’t recall how often they played 3-Dimensional Chess, but it was iconic enough that you could buy the chess boards, promoted as being played in Star Trek, years before The Next Generation was even imaginably possible. Here’s one still of them playing. vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/df/Spock_McCoy_3D_chess.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171206025141&path-prefix=en
Gary got annoyed with the way the IBM team was running Deep Blue. They did not tell Gary that they were changing the program after each game. Gary expected to learn its behavior over time and it kept changing. I think Gary had a reasonable complaint as he was NOT competing against set a machine. Ethelred Hardrede
Hmm... So, our timeline is a little skewed. Computers can beat the best humans at Chess, but maybe not back in 1994. Well, now with machine learning, computers are getting worryingly good at superseding humans at many tasks.
@@manictiger "but maybe not back in 1994." No BUT, Deep Blue beat Gary in 1997. Then IBM disassembled Deep Blue. It was not modern deep learning. It was human programming on a special built computer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov I remember the rematch not the first set. Probably because Gary won the first but lost the rematch. Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the modern chess engine Stockfish and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match. I agree, Deep Blue is nothing.
The thing is that difficulty levels started to mirror user skills instead of processing power spent in calculations.. So easy to medium levels on modern games were "stupid on purpose"
If I recall correctly, the IBM computer programmers were permitted to use abnormal rules and the computer itself 'broke down' on two occasions for a number of hours. Kasparov's complaint came when he realised he'd been set up. It's rather suspicious that the computer was disassembled, when one would expect it to be maintained as an historic artifact as normally happens when an object marks a particular point in technological development.
The computer was huge and expensive, they could probably use it for other things. Then again IBM had deep (pun intended) pockets so they could have kept it.
Nice memories from my youth. Battle Chess was awesome back in the day. Thank you AGAIN for a wonderfully entertaining video. We SO appreciate all the long grueling hours it must have taken to film this. Week after week you earn my subscription. JT
@@RetroRecipes Oh, wow... I actually didn't expect to be asked for the specifics. I don't know of that many offhand. Now that I think about it, dozens might get monotonous after a while, so maybe just pick the best selling or best rated chess game from each console. I realize there might not actually be any chess games on the more recent consoles because everyone just wants FPS in those.
@@starcrashr The only problem with this is pitting two similar machine's programs against each other is fine, but invariably as I move up say from 8 to 16 bit, the more powerful will I think usually win. So the final winner will likely still be the modern machine. However I could just go through all 16 bit programs on the Amiga vs Atari ST for example.
@@RetroRecipes The point of this idea is to determine how true that is. After all, this video shows a MacBook tying with an Amiga. There's a solid chance that an older algorithm could get lucky, or that a newer algorithm was sloppily/lazily programmed. I'm sure you can agree with me that as the saying goes, "they don't make them like they used to." Sometimes newer games may focus on looking pretty and neglect the backend.
Wow. I still have my Amiga stuffed away in storage. This takes me back to when I had to fight to create an Amiga media lab amid a bunch of PC/Mac nerds. Fortunately, I won, and created some animations for industrial design that I never could've completed otherwise backinnaday. Thanx for the nostalgia! _(oh, your friend is ridiculously beautiful!)_
@@romaneberle When I got my A1000, I read up on the speech program, and then called my programmer buddy who was thrashing on his C64. When he answered, I held the phone by the monitor speaker, pressed Enter, and it said, "Hello Cliff, this izz paulz niew ameega compyooter" (I worked on the spelling to get it to sound a little better, not sure if that is exactly what I had typed). He paused a second, then replied, "OOOHHHHH mYYYYYYY!" and in a month had his own Amiga. >:-}
I'd be intrigued to see how Colossus Chess IV from 1984 would fair against a modern program, it was quite the beast for its time and ran very well on a C64.
As a fan of both Battlechess and the ChessMaster series, I can explain why the Amiga won so quickly while playing ChessMaster - the game’s AI was based on the minds of multiple chess champions of the time. Battlechess on the Amiga was more about the graphics than the actual game, which was evident when you played a single match against the CPU. The CPU is known to make ridiculous moves that would entrap itself halfway through the game.
The 80's was a very special time where sci-fi technology started to become realilty for the masses with these early home computers, inspiring so many young minds, so its no wonder the machines of this golden era have a special place in our hearts. Nice nostalgic vibes Retro Recipes !
Battle chess was dope. I think the main thing about the different programs is just the difficulties might not quite match up exactly. I am only rated at 800 so I am not all that good but I am learning and this was fun to watch.
Let’s see. Let me go ask someone I work with that actually worked on the Amiga when it was in production. It could be because that was a time when quality actually mattered so more thought was put into programming.
The Chessmaster 2000 was actually pretty good chess software, and even holds up today if you're just looking to learn the game or practice your various checkmate scenarios. It was kind of humorous watching it grab an extra queen to defeat RealChess 3D: as Black, a human player would've resigned well before that point. I think the conclusion that _can_ be drawn here is that although chess programs at their highest level can play very well (I'd love to have an ELO rating of 2000), the ways in which they handicap themselves are often surprising. And it was cool to see the Albin Counter-Gambit being pulled out--I lost a tournament game against it once and still have nightmares about it....
Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the ultra modern chess engine Stockfish 8 and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match. Chessmaster 2000 is literally nothing compared to modern AI powererd systems such as AlphaZero.
I find it hilarious simply in the fact that the '87 Amiga was smooth with its animations and the 2019 Macbook lags the entire time on something extremely basic. Technology has both come a long way and also failed completely like this Apple product.
My friend and I did a similar test back in the day where we hooked an Amiga 500 and an Atari 520 STfm up via serial ports and had them play Battle Chess head to head. It's not a comprehensive test, by any means, but 2 out of 3 games, the Atari won. The Atari does have a very slight speed advantage over the Amiga, CPU-wise, but I don't think there's any difference in the AI between versions. More games would have to be run. Maybe 100 to be sure. Alas, I don't have either of those machines anymore... But maybe if I emulate them...? Now there's an idea.
I think the most entertaining part was watching Lady Fractic's responses to the Battle Chess conflicts - and to Peri's remark to the Mac's piece being naked because you could "see his wood". As for the reason one would win over the other, I would assume that even two chess masters would face choices that might seem like a good plan, yet not work out in the end.
it all has to do with the chess engine used , not so much the computer hardware. (of course hardware will dictate what engines you can run). The video alluded to that fact, but the title specifically mentions hardware vs hardware.
Based on the video title, I expected to see the same chess engine being run on two different computers. This intrigued me, because I wanted to see how they would solve this. Well, they did not.
Back in the day, myself and a friend pitted "Speech Chess" on the ZX Spectrum against "White Knight Mk II" on the BBC Micro. The Spectrum game used sampled speech. Only two games were played and the Spectrum won the first round, and the Beeb was the victor for the rematch. Speech Chess responded to its defeat by saying " Check - well I never! - Mate" .
One of my favourite games on the ST, computers are getting flasher graphics but how much better can a game of computer chess really get. Brilliant and fascinating video, thanks for sharing.
The first Amiga win is a set piece, a classic checkmate (the "Scholar's Mate"). If the Mac isn't aware of it, then it won't make the first defence. It could be validation of Peri's law.
While the moves as a whole might be known, the computers are only evaluating the possible moves three or four moves hence and chosing (and here is a thought, is that choice actually random, rather than optimal?) , if a end is five moves hence it could be missed on the first reply move.
@@highpath4776 back in the day i wrote AmigaDraughts (still available on aminet) which would look up to 9 moves ahead. Unfortuantely, there wasn't an Amiga fast enough to play at that level.
The best test would be to set the highest difficulty rating possible on both machines and compare those. Everything else is more a test of how good they think a human player at whatever difficulty rating would be.
I wonder how much this is testing the computer's capability via processing power versus the software's accuracy in estimating the Elo rating. If either version of the chess game was actually playing at a higher level than stated, it is more likely to win...based solely on whether the developers were accurate in their assessments. Would it not be a more traditional 'can an Amiga beat a Mac' contest by having both machines operate at max level regardless of time....or to impose a time limit and require the best response available within the limit?
I was also thinking along these lines. If you do not limit the time the computer can take then speed doesn't matter. The computational quality should be the same, just slower (possible short-cuts/compression aside). If you could get the same software on both computers then you would be testing for these outliers because the algorithms being run by both computers would then be the same. You'd then have to run 1000s (millions?) of games to remove game-based variance as well.
Still an excellent testimony to how well those old Amiga chess games were programmed, even though the processing speed was not that great in comparison.
There is absolutely no way any Amiga chess program running on original Commodore Amiga hardware can beat the Stockfish chess program running on modern PC hardware without the tester rigging the contest by hobbling the PC as this guy ^^ always does. "Can somebody in a wheelchair out run Usain Bolt? Yes! If we break Bolt's legs and tie him down first! Astonishing!". :rolleyes:
@@RetroRecipes 6 da/p move would only make it that much more valuable an experiment - besides, its not as though someone has to stand-by and wait - I say do it!
I used to play online chess against a friend that always beat me, so one game i loaded up Cyrus 2 on my Commodore 64 and mirrored all moves between my phone and my C64, i think i had it set to only think for 10 seconds, and it managed to beat him pretty fast, he got very surprised i beat him, and even more surprised when i told him i didn't beat him, but a computer from 1982 did XD
There were no software libraries back then for chess I would assume. The algorithm is likely not as efficient or advanced as software libraries today, I doubt there's a big difference between programmed chess AI today, they're all limited. I also don't think there's anyone out there programming traditional chess AI, instead probably training neural networks for funsies or a school project and whatnot. Maybe someday we'll have capable true chess AI that will run on most normal computers.
Watch the movie Game Over. It’s documentary about the Gary vs Deep Blue match up. Garry’s compliant was that the Grand Master consultants who were only supposed to train deep blue were present at the match. Those consultants were in the back room with the computer And Garry suspected that the consultants were influencing and vetting the moves Deep Blue was making in real time. Garry requested to see the deep blue logs and the IBM team refused, they dissembled the computer and never turned it back on. Garry has every right to be upset.
"Sub-creatures! Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, the Traveller has come! Choose and perish!" Amiga needed the proton-pack upgrade.
Well in all reality the reason why they tied in the end is because they were all set to to combat at the same elo. Processing power has absolutely nothing to do with playing the game except to process potential moves faster.
I'd prefer to use a different and much more disturbing thought about why this could occur (if someone else came up with this, then give them credit): Silva's Law: The more technologically advanced a civilization gets, the less they become intuitively comfortable with higher math and abstract thought. Eg. The 1980's programs were better written because the people at the time had a better grasp of math, AI Chess patterns, and the hardware versus today's programmers (who rarely machine code, deal with higher math/abstract concepts in their heads, and don't play as much Chess) We let our tech tell us the answers instead of trusting our brains...so we're getting dumber as we approach the singularity!
@vctjkhme There is a major difference between knowing how to use a CAD program and designing elegant, beautiful, and effective things. The best analogy I can come up with is concerning Architecture. Tons of architects can and often use the latest and greatest programs to design their buildings. They function, are mathematically sound boxes of hideousness. Look at some of the most modern construction and you will see plain ugly, poorly scaled buildings. Then compare that to a building designed by an architect that takes history, human scaling, aesthetics, efficiency, and environment into consideration (all fundamental to good Architecture). The results are beautiful buildings built by people who knew better and are able to create better buildings. It's the difference between a castle (or Manorial home) and today's house (which is nothing more than a glorified supersized disposable cardboard box). One will last, the other, tossed into the trash. The same idea can be applied to computer programs.
@vctjkhme I would agree that some tools can enable ordinary or extraordinary people to be even more productive.. it isn't a given rule of thumb. In general for programming, what I have seen is that the extra computing power (and lines of code) didn't translate into better logic for Chess games. Most of it translated into a prettier GUI or got eaten up by code bloat. Add that to the fact that most programs today are written by scores of people (versus say 1 to 10 people for muh older systems) and you see a marked decrease in Chess playing power as a ratio of code written. If these tools were increasing human capacity to build better things, we would expect this modern program to run circles around the older version, along with incredibly innovative AI. We don't see that, instead we see a marginally better AI at the cost of a magnitude increase in code and staff needed to write/test it.
Damn straight. I've noticed the laziness of modern day programming. Today, it's all about using libraries which are never explored nor understood, and "borrowing" bits of code from wherever, in order to save time and meet deadlines so investors get their returns faster. This wasn't the case back in the day. People used to program because they had strong minds and a passion for creating. They new it wasn't easy, but they they loved the work. You couldn't just jump on the internet and find solutions which were figured out by somebody else. You had to do your own thinking and solve you own problems. Now, people are seen as geniuses because they can accomplish things much faster with prettier results by following a tutorial. The scary part of this is that these slopped together programs which aren't even completely understood by their the programmer who "writes" them are running our banks, the stock market, government... everything we need to sustain our society.
@vctjkhme It's an odd effect in humanity. It reminds me of the study were we in increase fuel efficiency for cars and the result was even more fuel use, or building an extra lane on a highway to fix traffic congestion only to find more traffic!
That was a really interesting experiment, and very surprising. I think your analogy at the end summed up perfectly was going on. That computer beating the Chess Master Kasparov was a seminal moment in computer development and programming. I remember it well...and it is the moment that woke a lot of people up to the potential power of the silicon chip and some cracking good programmers. Kasparov acted like spoilt child when he lost...proper dummy out the pram stuff...bless him......peace.
This is the first video I've seen from you. I loved the intro although the audio made it seem a bit too distorted. You're dog is so cute. Look forward to seeing the rest of this video and the others on your channel. Subbed and Belled.
I remember Chessmaster 2000 on Amiga and it was the best chess software of its time, and its ability as a software coded in 1986 to beat modern software proves its genius.
Just a little nitpick and maybe something somewhat interesting: Castle isn't another word for rook - it's specifically the maneuver of the king moving "through" a rook. This is part of most successful strategies since it puts the king in a better defensive position and connects the rooks, keeping the back row safe. Castling is only legal if neither the king nor the rook have moved before. The early queen exchange forced Battle Chess to take with the king which may have been the losing move already since it couldn't castle anymore, unlike the Mac (I haven't analyzed the position but not castling tends to put you on the back foot).
@@BixenteFabregas Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the modern chess engine Stockfish and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match.
There are many factors involved when comparing two different chess programs but I suspect that having a machine that can compute significantly more possibilities than the Amiga could achieve in significantly more time would give a huge advantage. I wrote a chess program as part of my degree and depth of search is only part of the answer, it's also the ability to analyse and prioritise which moves are 'worth more' than the others. The searching techniques are pretty standard in reality, it's the actual analysis that helps decide which is the better move. It could easily be that some programs are made better at it than others.
The Hairy formerly known as Prince? I have two hypotheses to explain the Amiga victories; 1) Chess is a game of chance. It certainly is when I play it! 2) The Amiga picks its opening move at random and the opponent can't plan that deeply. By the time the opponents' few order of magnitudes of computing power starts giving it an advantage, the game has mostly been decided, this would lead to a 50-50 chance of winning... Like the results you got. Coincidence? What's 3 orders of magnitude more of computing power compared to 10^26 moves? Conclusion: Chess is a game of pure chance, I was a Grandmaster all along! :D
Great idea with Chess! My 6y old daughter is learning how to play The Royal Game and she loves this episode. Now I need to find my old A500+ and Chessmaster in the attic. I hope that they still work. PS. Your channel ROCKS. Best wishes from Poland.
I loved this resipode, brilliant, glued from beginning to end as I love chess and have fond memories of the classic Amiga Battle Chess. Would be really interesting to have the best chess on Mac and Amiga set to the highest setting possible and run the Amiga version under emulation as fast as possible. I'll still vote for the Amiga to win 😊
@@RetroRecipes I'm tuned, staring at the screen, clicking refresh and not blinking until Mac vs Amiga Chess part II comes out 😁😁 who needs to go to the movies, lol
Not a chess expert but I do know one or two things about computers. When time is not a constraint, a slow computer can outperform a fast one. This was proven by this video. The reason for that is the algorithm used to make decisions. I would assume that today’s makers of chess apps have a fairly small budget. I would also assume that a fairly amount of that budget goes into visuals, animations and sounds. That can result in an algorithm of lesser quality. Another theory could be, that the modern chess engines are kept easy on purpose: not frustrate the users or they will not play your game.
The Chess.app included with the Mac is a prettied up version of the GNU Chess program, which can be discovered reading the 'About Chess' that includes a link to download the source code.
thank you very much for the show, back when i had a chess computer {the great game machine} that in one game was faced with losing its queen for a minor piece, so it invented rank zero and move the queen from a5 to f0!
I wonder what each program on the Amiga could do on its toughest settings (with time limits). Battle chess used to be notoriously bad anyway, but I guess it held up quite well all things considered. The thing is, even an Amiga could give a grand master a hard time back in the day. Especially if you had an A2000 or better.
Women fundamentally don't understand the concept of equality. It doesn't mean you just get more. For everything you gain, you also have to lose something.
🗨️ _Start a conversation not a fire. This happy corner of the world was born from childhood nostalgia. Comment with kindness. Thank you :-)_
🆕 Check out the new rematch with both apps at top skill levels!: ruclips.net/video/B5Vu-97b3y8/видео.html
❓FAQ:
1. "This isn't about computers it's about A.I., or it's only a test of speed, etc." I explain this at 4:23. You gotta watch the video before commenting on the video ;-)
2. I realize 10^123 is more than double the atoms in the universe. I was trying to say the power of figure is double but it came out badly 🤦♂️FML
3. When we said that move was dated what we saw on our smaller CRT TV was the King going in for a cuddle then bludgeoning the Queen to death. Showing "domestic violence" as a "joke" in video games doesn't happen today and is what we thought was "dated". BUT, what we didn't see at the time was her pulling a knife. Bad Queen! So it was actually self defense!
- What's your theory on the final result? Low Mac Elo? Fluke? Peri's law? ;-) Comment below!
You do realise the update for chess on the Mac was optional? Nonetheless, for speech dictation in chess, it's 1.2GB?!?
WHAT?!?
@@mrdaxtercrane Yeah I realized afterwards. Still, there's something nice about not being offered updates. Though I see the value of them too. Different worlds...
Retro Recipes, ELO score changes over the years. Amiga's playing at ELO 1600 from 1987, for example, is about 1300-1450 in today's (the year 2020) ELO score. The ELO score increases in time. Some say that top chess players from the mid-1980s - Karpov, Kasparov, Garatolij Karparov :-) & others - for the same level of playing would be rated at a lower ELO today (say 2600 instead of 2850 from mid-1980s). World champs from 1920-30s, imagine this, would be at a level of a FIDE master or international-master (IM) today (ELO 2300-2400), which is below today's Grandmasters (GM) level! They could not even compete for the world's champion title! In your test, you should lower the ELO rating on a 2020 Mac to 1400, to "roughly" match Amiga's ELO 1600 from 1987. Chessmaster 2000 play was a fair match because ELO was somewhat adjusted; Chessmaster's ELO 2000 matches modern ELO 1850. Sargon should definitely be readjusted because HiArcs is a modern beast.
Perhaps you can do another video with adjusted ELO scores, at least for Mac Chess vs Amiga? It would be interesting to see. (I don't have Amiga anymore so I can't try).
I actually have to agree with "Peri's Law". There are masterful strategies being used these days, but the way Chess is played changes as time goes on. In 10 or 20 years, programs have been changed and "think" in different ways than they used to. Older Chess programs ran on computers that had much tighter limits so the programs code had to be very lean & clean in order to be playable. Today's code and coding methods are much less lean by comparison. Some are even down-right sloppy. I'm actually surprised the C64 didn't win the match.
@@thecaptain2281 That could be said for some programs, but not for HiArcs, Stockfish, Leela or their sorts; such modern algorithms (some are open source) take into account an insane number of things. In the test by Retro Recipes, Chessmaster on Amiga could score against 3D on Mac because the ELO score on a Mac program was somewhat lower, which matches the Amiga program's ELO from 20 years ago. At what level of computer chess we have come today, check the description for AlphaZero and what it runs on; it taught ITSELF to play chess at a superhuman level in less than 4 hours, WITHOUT any reference to historic games, books for openings or endings, etc. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero
One of my favourite comedy one liners, is from Tim Vine: "I had dinner with chess champion Gary Casparov the other night. We had a checkered tablecloth and it took him 2hours to pass the salt"
If you match ELO ratings, all you're doing is discovering which engine has the most conservative ELO replication. Just set everything on the most badass settings!
This was my thought as well - you're not really testing much by setting the ELOs the same. A much better test would be to whack them all up to maximum and try again (possibly emulating the Amiga on far faster hardware to mitigate the time issue.)
@Don hence my comment on emulation.
@Don you could give them the same amount of time to think about the turn. For example, each machine could have one hour per turn
exactly! they don't test Amiga's and Mac's AI (BTW both have exactly none) but precision of ELO settings in chess applications.
@@bijelodugme5935 re AI, many people would consider computer chess an AI challenge. As time goes on, however, techniques developed in AI research become commonplace in computer science. So "AI" becomes only the frontier. Is deep learning AI? give a few years and people probably won't think of it that way anymore.
Difference between an 80's Amiga and a Mac? In 10 years the Commodore will still be working.
so so true. it was build well.
I have to try mine.
And you can repair it.
Commodore never tried their hardest to block your right to repair.
They probably let Jonny Ive go as he was trying to make the keyboard get thinner to the point of vanishing completely. The keyboard area would then become a touch screen and your Macbook Pro would become a giant Nintendo DS.
Thanks. The Amiga Knights looked like Mandalorians to me.
Hi, I just wanted to write you a quick real message to say that I’m incredibly grateful you have chosen to support us in this way. It really does help the content continue. Cheers! Your friend in retro, Perifractic
I remember playing Battle Chess only for the combat animations back in the day XD
Me too. I wasn't really interested in playing chess at all, I just wanted to see all of the different combinations of fighting. :D
After awhile I just played it straight 2d for the speed. I mean, you can only watch the same slow animations so many times :D
same but what really shocked me was how quickly I got sick to death of the 3D when I thought that was the most amazing idea ever initially. I have shunned all attempts at clever 3D views of chess ever since. You just can't beat that simple 2D view.
Oh wow, same
i learned the chess rules from this game when i was 5 or so.
@7:45 "Sneezes"
Feb 2020 response: "Bless you"
April 2020 Response: "Diving away for cover"
Kick his ass for not sneezing in his elbow and demand he wears a mask.
Amiga is still an amazing computer decades later.
Jakub Dzik Amiga Rulezzz!!! 👈😀😎😘
Amiga Forever !
I sold mine for mega money then I installed amiga emulator on my pc and never looked back
still better than moder PCs
This was the video sent to me that got me into your channel. I wonder if I would have stumbled across it later through David's channel.
I've only gotten back onto emulation recently but like all the content. I actually fell for the chicken lips video because of the tone difference in Australia, the rule is it ends by midday.
Love the voice over booth, it's where I shoot all my captains log videos
Thanks for watching!
@@RetroRecipes watching is the easy part, thank you for uploading all the entertaining and informative videos. Would you consider dong a tutorial video for those that us Retroarch only VS other stand alone emulators??? I'm only able to get double sided disc and tape games for the Commodore 64 because I was lucky enough to guess that these roms would be patched and run as single files in cartridge rom format?? I imagine there are so many others stuck on this. it started with me running Commadore 64 and Amiga games using retroArch on my hacked snes mini at the time, So it's the exact same now that I'm a retropie user long side my hacked snes mini. So the same think would apply for many other retroarch uses being using a pi, a hacked snes mini, hacked xbox, hacked ps3. You would be helping a lot of people that don't have the know-how or are unable to resource for themselves original hardware, or multiple mini consoles. i know the Retropie scene isn't your area but I'm suggesting Retroarch in general and covering across the board, you will be helping a lot of people showing people that they have more options with what's available to them at present time!
thanks again!
@@foghornleghorn5882 Thanks for the suggestion. Apart from THEA500 Mini which makes things simple and fun I generally am not a fan of emulators. I find it tricky to make videos I’m not passionate about so that would be quite far down the list. 😞
@@RetroRecipes yeah i thought so, I thought I'd give it a shot in asking, ah well they can learn the hard way like I did. cheers
The 1st game had a really unusual opening never ever seen in modern professional chess these days called 'The Albin counter gambit'. I noticed the Mac actually initiated this opening not the amiga program...this opening was popular in the 19th century, the age of romanticism.
The 2nd game the mac played an opening called 'The modern' which is g6 after e4, an opening that is still popular today. It is called the modern because black intends to allow white to build a large pawn centre than attack it from the wings...hence g6 fianchettoing the bishop...this strategy is known as 'hypermodern' play and emerged in the 1920's or so.
The 3rd game Sargon plays 'Birds opening' again a rare opening these days in the top flight....the most exciting answer to f4 is the reply e5 (the From gambit) which can lead to extremely wild play, but these days d5 is played usually by the top players.
Very interesting, thank you chesxpert!
Oddly enough, i almost beat the chess guru teacher at chess club in high school by using what I now to be The Albin Gambit, and at the end he told me that I made 1 mistake otherwise I would've played a perfect game and had him in checkmate. So I performed the Far Q Maneuver and left the room for a cigarette.
@@JesusisJesus far Q, much more popular (and further away) than the near queue.
@@JesusisJesus Wait what? You were allowed smoke in high school?
@@VanisherXP outside obviously
I think this is your best video. Ties together so many wonderful nostalgic/nerd threads, and with very high production value. A masterpiece!
Thank you for your kind words! Means a lot 👍🕹️♟🙏
Young adults seeing Battle Chess in 2020: "Hey, that's like in Harry Potter!"
Adults watching Harry Potter in 2001: "Hey, that's like Battle Chess!"
Teenagers seeing Battle Chess in The 1980s: "Hey, that's like the chess board from The Millennium Falcon!
Adults seeing Battle Chess in The 1980s: "Hey, that's not like the 3-D chess Kirk and Spock used to play!"
i am "young" adult (25yo) and I played Battle Chess like 10-15 years ago with my friend on elementary school, so i wasn't surprised or compering it to Harry Potter (wich i watched many times) ...but i think you are on point anyway :)
That's good stuff 👍
@@SgtRayman you had an older sibling who took care to introduce you to the good stuff?
Stephen Thomas I don’t get this. I’ve watched all the Kirk Star Trek films and seen all the OG TV series, and I don’t remember them playing chess, perhaps a single time, but not more than that. I thought it was something that only really happened in TNG
Casper S� I can’t recall how often they played 3-Dimensional Chess, but it was iconic enough that you could buy the chess boards, promoted as being played in Star Trek, years before The Next Generation was even imaginably possible. Here’s one still of them playing. vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/df/Spock_McCoy_3D_chess.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171206025141&path-prefix=en
Gary got annoyed with the way the IBM team was running Deep Blue. They did not tell Gary that they were changing the program after each game. Gary expected to learn its behavior over time and it kept changing.
I think Gary had a reasonable complaint as he was NOT competing against set a machine.
Ethelred Hardrede
Hmm... So, our timeline is a little skewed. Computers can beat the best humans at Chess, but maybe not back in 1994. Well, now with machine learning, computers are getting worryingly good at superseding humans at many tasks.
@@manictiger
"but maybe not back in 1994."
No BUT, Deep Blue beat Gary in 1997. Then IBM disassembled Deep Blue. It was not modern deep learning. It was human programming on a special built computer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov
I remember the rematch not the first set. Probably because Gary won the first but lost the rematch.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the modern chess engine Stockfish and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match. I agree, Deep Blue is nothing.
Top comment
The fact that IBM refused a rematch says it all.
The thing is that difficulty levels started to mirror user skills instead of processing power spent in calculations.. So easy to medium levels on modern games were "stupid on purpose"
In Battle Chess, if you have a knight vs. knight it replays the fight scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail.
Yes. I was disappointed this wasn't shown
I was waiting to see that too. lol
What I learned from this video: You both have the same haircut
It was two-for-one day.
I too tried for the content, but couldn't make it through him talking.
lol they are not twins ?
When your woman looks like you in the mirror. Sexual ambiguity all around.
Alex F hah, same haircut. But a stunningly beautiful woman.
If I recall correctly, the IBM computer programmers were permitted to use abnormal rules and the computer itself 'broke down' on two occasions for a number of hours. Kasparov's complaint came when he realised he'd been set up. It's rather suspicious that the computer was disassembled, when one would expect it to be maintained as an historic artifact as normally happens when an object marks a particular point in technological development.
The computer was huge and expensive, they could probably use it for other things.
Then again IBM had deep (pun intended) pockets so they could have kept it.
Nice memories from my youth. Battle Chess was awesome back in the day. Thank you AGAIN for a wonderfully entertaining video. We SO appreciate all the long grueling hours it must have taken to film this. Week after week you earn my subscription.
JT
Does that mean you unsubscribe every Wednesday? 😉
Seriously though thank you. This was about 3 hours filming and 3 days editing. But such good fun!
Well ... not EVERY Wednesday! LOL
the doggo is like "stop talking to invisible people, im right here.. infront of your face... hello?"
You should do a bracket style tournament between dozens of chess AIs spanning 4 decades. I'd watch the hell out of that.
Neat idea! What chess AIs would you like to see?
@@RetroRecipes Oh, wow... I actually didn't expect to be asked for the specifics. I don't know of that many offhand. Now that I think about it, dozens might get monotonous after a while, so maybe just pick the best selling or best rated chess game from each console. I realize there might not actually be any chess games on the more recent consoles because everyone just wants FPS in those.
@@starcrashr The only problem with this is pitting two similar machine's programs against each other is fine, but invariably as I move up say from 8 to 16 bit, the more powerful will I think usually win. So the final winner will likely still be the modern machine.
However I could just go through all 16 bit programs on the Amiga vs Atari ST for example.
@@RetroRecipes The point of this idea is to determine how true that is. After all, this video shows a MacBook tying with an Amiga. There's a solid chance that an older algorithm could get lucky, or that a newer algorithm was sloppily/lazily programmed. I'm sure you can agree with me that as the saying goes, "they don't make them like they used to." Sometimes newer games may focus on looking pretty and neglect the backend.
Wow. I still have my Amiga stuffed away in storage. This takes me back to when I had to fight to create an Amiga media lab amid a bunch of PC/Mac nerds. Fortunately, I won, and created some animations for industrial design that I never could've completed otherwise backinnaday. Thanx for the nostalgia! _(oh, your friend is ridiculously beautiful!)_
Mac: I can speak
Amiga: H O L D M Y B E E E R
HAWLD MAEE BEERH
hahaha i could hear the voice in my head hahaha
But to listen, it requires a 1.2gig DL. At least the Amiga doesn't even pretend to... heh
@@romaneberle When I got my A1000, I read up on the speech program, and then called my programmer buddy who was thrashing on his C64. When he answered, I held the phone by the monitor speaker, pressed Enter, and it said, "Hello Cliff, this izz paulz niew ameega compyooter" (I worked on the spelling to get it to sound a little better, not sure if that is exactly what I had typed). He paused a second, then replied, "OOOHHHHH mYYYYYYY!" and in a month had his own Amiga. >:-}
@@pault151 When I had my Amiga say the alphabet... "ab-kadef-gijek-minop quistuvitzes" I can still hear it reciting that years later.
I'd be intrigued to see how Colossus Chess IV from 1984 would fair against a modern program, it was quite the beast for its time and ran very well on a C64.
Great channel!
Thanks for the visit
@@RetroRecipes I visited your channel and subscribed in the first minute. :) Hope you'll reach the silver status soon! :)
As a fan of both Battlechess and the ChessMaster series, I can explain why the Amiga won so quickly while playing ChessMaster - the game’s AI was based on the minds of multiple chess champions of the time. Battlechess on the Amiga was more about the graphics than the actual game, which was evident when you played a single match against the CPU. The CPU is known to make ridiculous moves that would entrap itself halfway through the game.
The 80's was a very special time where sci-fi technology started to become realilty for the masses with these early home computers, inspiring so many young minds, so its no wonder the machines of this golden era have a special place in our hearts. Nice nostalgic vibes Retro Recipes !
Battle chess was dope. I think the main thing about the different programs is just the difficulties might not quite match up exactly. I am only rated at 800 so I am not all that good but I am learning and this was fun to watch.
The Amiga was serious when it said it was the chessmaster.
Let’s see. Let me go ask someone I work with that actually worked on the Amiga when it was in production. It could be because that was a time when quality actually mattered so more thought was put into programming.
The Chessmaster 2000 was actually pretty good chess software, and even holds up today if you're just looking to learn the game or practice your various checkmate scenarios. It was kind of humorous watching it grab an extra queen to defeat RealChess 3D: as Black, a human player would've resigned well before that point.
I think the conclusion that _can_ be drawn here is that although chess programs at their highest level can play very well (I'd love to have an ELO rating of 2000), the ways in which they handicap themselves are often surprising. And it was cool to see the Albin Counter-Gambit being pulled out--I lost a tournament game against it once and still have nightmares about it....
Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the ultra modern chess engine Stockfish 8 and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match. Chessmaster 2000 is literally nothing compared to modern AI powererd systems such as AlphaZero.
Dog: Oh man hes staring and talking to thin air. hes losing it.
dog: are you ok? im right here
Techmoan and RR notification. Today is off to a good start!
I find it hilarious simply in the fact that the '87 Amiga was smooth with its animations and the 2019 Macbook lags the entire time on something extremely basic.
Technology has both come a long way and also failed completely like this Apple product.
Your dog has perfect comedic timing!
He made it appear as such...could be anything he would still find the right words to say at that moment.
My friend and I did a similar test back in the day where we hooked an Amiga 500 and an Atari 520 STfm up via serial ports and had them play Battle Chess head to head. It's not a comprehensive test, by any means, but 2 out of 3 games, the Atari won. The Atari does have a very slight speed advantage over the Amiga, CPU-wise, but I don't think there's any difference in the AI between versions. More games would have to be run. Maybe 100 to be sure. Alas, I don't have either of those machines anymore... But maybe if I emulate them...? Now there's an idea.
I think the most entertaining part was watching Lady Fractic's responses to the Battle Chess conflicts - and to Peri's remark to the Mac's piece being naked because you could "see his wood". As for the reason one would win over the other, I would assume that even two chess masters would face choices that might seem like a good plan, yet not work out in the end.
I think the AI being older confuses the mac's AI due to the mac thinking it's playing a human, not a computer from the 80s
it all has to do with the chess engine used , not so much the computer hardware. (of course hardware will dictate what engines you can run). The video alluded to that fact, but the title specifically mentions hardware vs hardware.
Yes, it was a rubbish comparison.
@@tip00former1 rubbish comparison. Rubbish video. Nothing to see here. Except her
Based on the video title, I expected to see the same chess engine being run on two different computers. This intrigued me, because I wanted to see how they would solve this. Well, they did not.
RUclips rabbit hole brought me here the gud doggo in the intro made me stay
Back in the day, myself and a friend pitted "Speech Chess" on the ZX Spectrum against "White Knight Mk II" on the BBC Micro. The Spectrum game used sampled speech. Only two games were played and the Spectrum won the first round, and the Beeb was the victor for the rematch. Speech Chess responded to its defeat by saying " Check - well I never! - Mate" .
Haha that's great
I found it funny that the results ended in a draw like teaching Joshua tic-tac-toe. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"
One of my favourite games on the ST, computers are getting flasher graphics but how much better can a game of computer chess really get. Brilliant and fascinating video, thanks for sharing.
Fun fact, one of the best Chess players all time was using an Atari ST, his name is Garry Kasparov and showed up in several advertisments.
The first Amiga win is a set piece, a classic checkmate (the "Scholar's Mate"). If the Mac isn't aware of it, then it won't make the first defence. It could be validation of Peri's law.
While the moves as a whole might be known, the computers are only evaluating the possible moves three or four moves hence and chosing (and here is a thought, is that choice actually random, rather than optimal?) , if a end is five moves hence it could be missed on the first reply move.
@@highpath4776 back in the day i wrote AmigaDraughts (still available on aminet) which would look up to 9 moves ahead. Unfortuantely, there wasn't an Amiga fast enough to play at that level.
The best test would be to set the highest difficulty rating possible on both machines and compare those. Everything else is more a test of how good they think a human player at whatever difficulty rating would be.
Now I know on who she reminds me of.
"Are you a god?"
"No?"
"Then...DIE!""
―Gozer the Gozerian talking to Ray Stantz
"Ray when someone asks you if youre a god you say YES!"
@@7eventhLevel Muahaha Yes!
I wonder how much this is testing the computer's capability via processing power versus the software's accuracy in estimating the Elo rating. If either version of the chess game was actually playing at a higher level than stated, it is more likely to win...based solely on whether the developers were accurate in their assessments. Would it not be a more traditional 'can an Amiga beat a Mac' contest by having both machines operate at max level regardless of time....or to impose a time limit and require the best response available within the limit?
I was thinking the same thing, it's more of a software test. The only difference in the computers is speed of calculations.
I was also thinking along these lines. If you do not limit the time the computer can take then speed doesn't matter. The computational quality should be the same, just slower (possible short-cuts/compression aside). If you could get the same software on both computers then you would be testing for these outliers because the algorithms being run by both computers would then be the same. You'd then have to run 1000s (millions?) of games to remove game-based variance as well.
I agree. Setting them both on 2200 rating doesn't prove anything.
"good game, good game" "didn't they do well?"
Classic Bruce! 8)
😉
Nice to see them, to see them nice 👍
Aw this tickled me.. I recently worked in the London Palladium where his ashes were spread. There’s a plaque up there in his memory. What a man..
It'll be a good night if you play your chess right!
This is kinda like when people make two chat bits talk to each other but more nerdy
"10^123 moves (...) is nearly twice the number of atoms in the universe"
That's not how powers work! It's much much more...
Holy crap, you're right!
Still an excellent testimony to how well those old Amiga chess games were programmed, even though the processing speed was not that great in comparison.
Why an Amiga still can draw with a 2000 more powerfull computer? Because is old, not obsolete. :-) Amazing episode friends. Thank you very much. ;-)
There is absolutely no way any Amiga chess program running on original Commodore Amiga hardware can beat the Stockfish chess program running on modern PC hardware without the tester rigging the contest by hobbling the PC as this guy ^^ always does.
"Can somebody in a wheelchair out run Usain Bolt? Yes! If we break Bolt's legs and tie him down first! Astonishing!". :rolleyes:
Battle Chess are awesome. The animations and sound effects were amazing and it made many people want to play chess.
I bet most of us where rooting for the AMIGA.
Come on guys, get the C64 in the game.
Sadly that would've taken 6 days per move at high skill levels. Not kidding.
@@RetroRecipes but it's what the people want........
Come on.....do it
Haha never say never
@@RetroRecipes
6 da/p move would only make it that much more valuable an experiment - besides, its not as though someone has to stand-by and wait - I say do it!
That was pretty cool. Also saw your Ghostbusters account video, and am now subscribed. I like your style!
I lost it at the Puppy Fractic bit! 🤣
LadyFrantic was thinking throughout the video: “I rather play a first person shooter!”
I used to play online chess against a friend that always beat me, so one game i loaded up Cyrus 2 on my Commodore 64 and mirrored all moves between my phone and my C64, i think i had it set to only think for 10 seconds, and it managed to beat him pretty fast, he got very surprised i beat him, and even more surprised when i told him i didn't beat him, but a computer from 1982 did XD
That Battle Chess game was one of my favorites from back in the day.
you need to pit chess master against the two mac apps to find out if it is in fact the chess master.
Amiga coders had to be smarter. I bet the Mac software just imported some generic cut rate chess library and wrapped it in pretty graphics.
There were no software libraries back then for chess I would assume. The algorithm is likely not as efficient or advanced as software libraries today, I doubt there's a big difference between programmed chess AI today, they're all limited. I also don't think there's anyone out there programming traditional chess AI, instead probably training neural networks for funsies or a school project and whatnot.
Maybe someday we'll have capable true chess AI that will run on most normal computers.
@@Jaker788 There's actually a huge difference. I suggest you look up Stockfish and go on from there.
Why chess game on iPad vs amigo
Watch the movie Game Over. It’s documentary about the Gary vs Deep Blue match up. Garry’s compliant was that the Grand Master consultants who were only supposed to train deep blue were present at the match. Those consultants were in the back room with the computer And Garry suspected that the consultants were influencing and vetting the moves Deep Blue was making in real time. Garry requested to see the deep blue logs and the IBM team refused, they dissembled the computer and never turned it back on. Garry has every right to be upset.
They submitted all the code results and decision trees later.
"Sub-creatures! Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, the Traveller has come! Choose and perish!"
Amiga needed the proton-pack upgrade.
So the folk story of John Henry has now come down to this - can the old machines still go toe-to-toe with modernity
Well in all reality the reason why they tied in the end is because they were all set to to combat at the same elo. Processing power has absolutely nothing to do with playing the game except to process potential moves faster.
I'd prefer to use a different and much more disturbing thought about why this could occur (if someone else came up with this, then give them credit):
Silva's Law: The more technologically advanced a civilization gets, the less they become intuitively comfortable with higher math and abstract thought.
Eg. The 1980's programs were better written because the people at the time had a better grasp of math, AI Chess patterns, and the hardware versus today's programmers (who rarely machine code, deal with higher math/abstract concepts in their heads, and don't play as much Chess)
We let our tech tell us the answers instead of trusting our brains...so we're getting dumber as we approach the singularity!
@vctjkhme There is a major difference between knowing how to use a CAD program and designing elegant, beautiful, and effective things.
The best analogy I can come up with is concerning Architecture. Tons of architects can and often use the latest and greatest programs to design their buildings. They function, are mathematically sound boxes of hideousness. Look at some of the most modern construction and you will see plain ugly, poorly scaled buildings.
Then compare that to a building designed by an architect that takes history, human scaling, aesthetics, efficiency, and environment into consideration (all fundamental to good Architecture). The results are beautiful buildings built by people who knew better and are able to create better buildings.
It's the difference between a castle (or Manorial home) and today's house (which is nothing more than a glorified supersized disposable cardboard box). One will last, the other, tossed into the trash.
The same idea can be applied to computer programs.
@vctjkhme I would agree that some tools can enable ordinary or extraordinary people to be even more productive.. it isn't a given rule of thumb.
In general for programming, what I have seen is that the extra computing power (and lines of code) didn't translate into better logic for Chess games. Most of it translated into a prettier GUI or got eaten up by code bloat.
Add that to the fact that most programs today are written by scores of people (versus say 1 to 10 people for muh older systems) and you see a marked decrease in Chess playing power as a ratio of code written. If these tools were increasing human capacity to build better things, we would expect this modern program to run circles around the older version, along with incredibly innovative AI.
We don't see that, instead we see a marginally better AI at the cost of a magnitude increase in code and staff needed to write/test it.
Damn straight. I've noticed the laziness of modern day programming. Today, it's all about using libraries which are never explored nor understood, and "borrowing" bits of code from wherever, in order to save time and meet deadlines so investors get their returns faster. This wasn't the case back in the day. People used to program because they had strong minds and a passion for creating. They new it wasn't easy, but they they loved the work. You couldn't just jump on the internet and find solutions which were figured out by somebody else. You had to do your own thinking and solve you own problems. Now, people are seen as geniuses because they can accomplish things much faster with prettier results by following a tutorial. The scary part of this is that these slopped together programs which aren't even completely understood by their the programmer who "writes" them are running our banks, the stock market, government... everything we need to sustain our society.
@vctjkhme It's an odd effect in humanity. It reminds me of the study were we in increase fuel efficiency for cars and the result was even more fuel use, or building an extra lane on a highway to fix traffic congestion only to find more traffic!
@@buddyguy4723 Um.. when was that? Last I recalled math was going well under Islam... Or haven't you heard of that math called Algebra?
Battle Chess = Perfect
Voice over = Perfect
Dog Humor = Perfect
This is why I’m here! Keep making quality vids!
Thank you for your kind words! Means a lot 👍🕹️ 🐾
@@RetroRecipes And my condolences for the recent departure to puppy-heaven for your oldest.
Sees human staring at and talking to no one.
*engage compassion paw*
"You okay, fren?"
xD 10/10 comment. xD
Sick name and comment!
1:22 Puppyfractic really meant to say... "Put your arm down hooman, you are just a pawn in MY videos!"
would have loved to see HER reaction if a Tower had eaten a queen... that was probably the funniest move in BattleChess ;)
Amiga is the best even after all these years. Long live the Amiga
That was a really interesting experiment, and very surprising. I think your analogy at the end summed up perfectly was going on. That computer beating the Chess Master Kasparov was a seminal moment in computer development and programming. I remember it well...and it is the moment that woke a lot of people up to the potential power of the silicon chip and some cracking good programmers. Kasparov acted like spoilt child when he lost...proper dummy out the pram stuff...bless him......peace.
Silicon Chips ? I suppose the same result would run via transisor gates or thermonic valve, or if you could build it , mechanical difference engines.
If I recall correctly they found years later that a bug lost him the game.
I’d completely forgotten how good battle chess looked. Ah the memories
Even better on a CRT.
the dog is driving me crazy, how did he manage to be that cute and awesome
This is the first video I've seen from you. I loved the intro although the audio made it seem a bit too distorted. You're dog is so cute. Look forward to seeing the rest of this video and the others on your channel. Subbed and Belled.
King vs queen was hilarious.
"Dated" = "does not fit my puritanical sensibilities"
@@o00nemesis00o Each to their own but I personally would never get along with someone that sensitive :) They'd hate me in 3 seconds lol
Ya her woke reaction was hilarious, that was comedy gold lighten up lol
Very good clip with high qualified content in camparison to the usual utube environment!
I love your reference to the movie "WarGames"...very good!
this was such a nerdy thing to watch, I love it :)
I remember Chessmaster 2000 on Amiga and it was the best chess software of its time, and its ability as a software coded in 1986 to beat modern software proves its genius.
She's so beautiful! Reminds me of Sheena Easton of the 80s.
her eyes are wicked
@@spiewak70 yeah
Just a little nitpick and maybe something somewhat interesting: Castle isn't another word for rook - it's specifically the maneuver of the king moving "through" a rook. This is part of most successful strategies since it puts the king in a better defensive position and connects the rooks, keeping the back row safe. Castling is only legal if neither the king nor the rook have moved before. The early queen exchange forced Battle Chess to take with the king which may have been the losing move already since it couldn't castle anymore, unlike the Mac (I haven't analyzed the position but not castling tends to put you on the back foot).
Chessmaster 2000 lives up to it's name. He is just modest, otherwise he would dominate the chess scene.
Against Komodo, Fritz, Houdini or Rybka, to cite only popular chess engines, he'll never win a 10 games match. But yes, chessmaster is great.
@@BixenteFabregas Deepmind's AlphaZero absolutely crushed the modern chess engine Stockfish and won 839 games out of 1000. www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match.
There are many factors involved when comparing two different chess programs but I suspect that having a machine that can compute significantly more possibilities than the Amiga could achieve in significantly more time would give a huge advantage. I wrote a chess program as part of my degree and depth of search is only part of the answer, it's also the ability to analyse and prioritise which moves are 'worth more' than the others. The searching techniques are pretty standard in reality, it's the actual analysis that helps decide which is the better move. It could easily be that some programs are made better at it than others.
The Hairy formerly known as Prince? I have two hypotheses to explain the Amiga victories; 1) Chess is a game of chance. It certainly is when I play it! 2) The Amiga picks its opening move at random and the opponent can't plan that deeply. By the time the opponents' few order of magnitudes of computing power starts giving it an advantage, the game has mostly been decided, this would lead to a 50-50 chance of winning... Like the results you got. Coincidence? What's 3 orders of magnitude more of computing power compared to 10^26 moves? Conclusion: Chess is a game of pure chance, I was a Grandmaster all along! :D
Actually the opening move used by the Amiga in Chessmaster was not just random. I had Chessmaster 2K for my PC. It had a library of opening moves.
conclusion of this video: hairy up Amiga!!!
you both are amazing, my favorite couple in youtube, THANK YOU
Thank you for your kind words. Means a lot! 👍🕹
The amiga makes me want to learn chess, never tought it would be this interesting
Great idea with Chess! My 6y old daughter is learning how to play The Royal Game and she loves this episode. Now I need to find my old A500+ and Chessmaster in the attic. I hope that they still work. PS. Your channel ROCKS. Best wishes from Poland.
I loved this resipode, brilliant, glued from beginning to end as I love chess and have fond memories of the classic Amiga Battle Chess. Would be really interesting to have the best chess on Mac and Amiga set to the highest setting possible and run the Amiga version under emulation as fast as possible. I'll still vote for the Amiga to win 😊
Stay tuned!
@@RetroRecipes I'm tuned, staring at the screen, clicking refresh and not blinking until Mac vs Amiga Chess part II comes out 😁😁 who needs to go to the movies, lol
Amiga will lose. There is stockfish on the MAC right?
L,mmmmn
Kmjj
Not a chess expert but I do know one or two things about computers. When time is not a constraint, a slow computer can outperform a fast one. This was proven by this video. The reason for that is the algorithm used to make decisions.
I would assume that today’s makers of chess apps have a fairly small budget. I would also assume that a fairly amount of that budget goes into visuals, animations and sounds. That can result in an algorithm of lesser quality.
Another theory could be, that the modern chess engines are kept easy on purpose: not frustrate the users or they will not play your game.
She looks like someone that would be introducing Newtek hardware for the amiga ironically
In late 80's my father's colleague was into chess-by-mail, but stopped when he realized it was computer against computer.
The Chess.app included with the Mac is a prettied up version of the GNU Chess program, which can be discovered reading the 'About Chess' that includes a link to download the source code.
thank you very much for the show, back when i had a chess computer {the great game machine} that in one game was faced with losing its queen for a minor piece, so it invented rank zero and move the queen from a5 to f0!
I'm too simple for chess. So I watched for LF and the Battle Chess animations.
This is just a fantastic video. I need to test this out myself!
I wonder what each program on the Amiga could do on its toughest settings (with time limits). Battle chess used to be notoriously bad anyway, but I guess it held up quite well all things considered. The thing is, even an Amiga could give a grand master a hard time back in the day. Especially if you had an A2000 or better.
Nice video! Cool concept to see a modern Mac and Amiga playing chess! Keep up the good work guys n' gals!
You’re spending an entire day nerding out with gorgeous Ladyfractic. I have 3 children. Sigh. Checkmate, Perifractic.
Don't forget all the pawn too ;-)
Man You have very relaxing voice
I like to hear you reading story's & Book's
Thank you. I have done a bit of narration. Also you might like this video: ruclips.net/video/QppmkcOoHTI/видео.html
10:56 I think we need an extras reel of just Lady F's reactions. "Dated"? Nope, that's equality. That means you get a sceptre upside your head.
Women fundamentally don't understand the concept of equality. It doesn't mean you just get more. For everything you gain, you also have to lose something.
@@aaronmicalowe Not many seem to get that.
This feels like a window into an alternate reality where Encarta replaced RUclips