Hi Eric,
if you like the Centaur, I am fine with it!

But with the upper quoted part I cannot agree: This "Panda" costs the same as the King Performance, which has all the "Mercedes" features ...

And sorry, every normal chess computer can be used as simple as the Centaur: I can also just take it, set up the pieces and start to play ... no sience is needed. OK, perhaps I have to choose a difficulty level. But at least I have a choice. And that applies to all other functions: I don't have to use them, but I can if I want. The Centaur won't give me that choice.

If the adaptive game were at least perfect, it would still be a brilliant chess computer. But as the many games have shown, it is not. Here the adaptive levels of Hiarcs are better by classes. Even the free Stockfish DD is better.

Despite all the criticism I think as a casual player you can have a lot of fun with the Centaur, no question.

And in any case, it's unique and special. Have fun with it!

And also a warm welcome at our community!

Kind Regards,
Sascha

__________________
This post may not be reproduced without prior written permission.
Copyright (c) 1967-2025. All rights reserved to make me feel special. :-)

Hi Sascha,

I know that you'e by far the better chess computer specialist than me. I do have to disagree with some points though.
For the features that most players want, connection with internet or bluetooth and the battery option will cost you €155 (45%) extra.
I know that The King Performance has a number of extra features compared to the Centaur, but it is the simplicity of the Centaur that made me choose for the Centaur, and the way I can move the pieces, no pressure fields.

Further I believe that the Centaur is building and improving a profile from me every time I play a game. When the Centaur is constantly used against opponents of different strengths, then it's hard to make a correct profile and the adaptive strength will make faults.
I believe that the Centaur is ment as a personal chess computer that can build an accurate profile of its owner. If you have the feeling that the build profile is totally wrong you can always reset to factory settings and start over.

I'm not saying that the Centaur is a perfect chess computer, it's perfect for me, and I think many other players. I haven't experienced big faults in the adaptive play, and I'm low level, but not that bad in playing that I wouldn't recognise stupid moves. Brilliant ones are harder to recognise for me

The Panda-Mercedes example was just an example, but I think it's an example that everybody understands. I just wanted to say, if the Centaur doesn't have the options you want then you should buy an other model. I drive a Mercedes, but that doesn't mean that I will criticise the Panda for all the features it doesn't have. I believe the Panda is a perfect car for millions...

I have been doubting for weeks which computer to buy, the Centaur or the Performance. Your reviews of both computers were decisive in my choice, thank you for that.

Kind regards,
Eric.

Hi Eric,
thanks for your reply. I remember very well your very detailed mail, which you wrote me after my review. And also your objections. That's why I asked you to register here.

The question is: Who determines what most users want? Of course I wrote the review from my point of view. But I also wrote that.

But to that point: Does everyone really want to play on the Internet? BT connection?

And please don't forget: Yes, you have to pay extra for BT at Millennium, but at least there is the possibility. After all, I can play with the Millennium devices on the Internet and I can connect the board to various programs and platforms, such as Hiarcs Explorer.

For the Centaur there is no way to upgrade it with BT and certainly no way to play with it on the Internet. I can't even connect it to the PC! There is no way to update for bug fixes! And as you can read in my review, he has some issues.

As already written: I'm happy if you like the Centaur, because that's exactly what it's all about, enjoyment of the hobby.

But as someone who currently has about 50 chess computers, I inevitably compare it with what I have.

And the way I appreciate and accept your opinion (otherwise I wouldn't have invited you to the forum), you have to live with my opinion.

All the best,
Sascha

__________________
This post may not be reproduced without prior written permission.
Copyright (c) 1967-2025. All rights reserved to make me feel special. :-)

Hi,

It’s not like Fiat vs. Mercedes, but rather like drinking wine (or beer) from plastic goblet vs. a glass.

The content is the same wine (or beer) and you can have fun with both;

It depends on the circumstances and personal expectations.

The plastic goblet is fitting well to the purpose of capturing a liquid in order to drink.

The glass is doing the same, but it’s often more appropriate for developing flavor and tasting. You will be able to discover the character of your beer (or wine) much better with a glass, because it’s developed for that.

The plastic goblet is the simplicity and without any feature, a real lover of wine (or beer) wouldn’t really care in case of thirst. As we say in France, the best wine is the one you have in hand.

Both can be used in garden or on a picknick.

And yes, both have a market, but finally don’t cost the same.

Cheers

Hi,
this is exactly the big issue!
The way this computer calculates the adaption can become very frustrating for weak players (like me) and seems to be far away from any natural or even human play.
It's a smart marketing publicity and obviously not wrong, because it adapts permanently - but more like a brutal machine, not like a human player of your level - not even like a hybrid...
Try out

DGT schreibt im Handbuch:

… Darüber hinaus spielt der Centaur auf menschliche Art, um Ihnen das beste Spielerlebnis zu bieten“ …

Was bedeutet das konkret?

Ein Spieler hat in der Regel gewisses Schachwissen und spielt dementsprechend auf einem Level.

Ich denke, dass schwache Spieler (ELO < 1300 ??) durchaus einmal überwiegend gute Züge spielen können (bei entsprechender Bedenkzeit), dann aber das Spiel dennoch verlieren (stärkere Gegner vorausgesetzt), da Sie Figuren einstellen, bzw. „blundern“.

Jetzt kommt die Logik zum Tragen; ein menschlicher Gegenspieler würde diese Situation ausnutzen und bestmöglich (gem. seinem Können) zu seinen Gunsten spielen, jedoch nicht absichtlich einen Zug einstreuen, um den Score auszugleichen.

Wenn bei (vielleicht auch zufällig) den besten gespielten Varianten der Gegner diese dann immer ebenso gut spielt, steigt das Niveau (bei guten Zügen) sehr schnell an und wird dann selbst bei „ausgleichenden“ Zügen schwer zu wenden. Ich vermute, dieser Effekt ist besonders bei spielschwachen Spielern der Fall.

Daher ist der Centaur definitiv kein menschlicher Spielersatz, ob er „your perfect chess friend“ wird, ist stark zu bezweifeln.

Hingegen ein höherer „Funlevel“ mit geringer Fehler Streuung oder ein knotenreduzierter Rechner („easy Stufen“) kommt diesem menschlichen Spiel meines Empfindens sehr viel näher als der des Centaurs.

Interessant wäre zu evaluieren, ob es eine "Langzeitanpassung" der gespeicherten Partien (wenn man ihn nicht auf Werkseinstellung zurücksetzt) gibt, und in wie weit das Auswirkung auf die menschliche Spielweise hat ? Vielleicht ist es ja genau das...

Aber das können die Experten hier wesentlich besser belegen, ich schreibe lediglich über meine persönlichen Erfahrungen .

Dennoch macht es Spass, mal zur Auflockerung ab und zu eine Partie gegen den DGT "Schach Ferrari" zu spielen.

Ich für meinen Teil hätte den Centaur durchaus meiner Sammlung einverleibt - für einen Preis um etwa 100€. Mehr wäre mir diese kastrierte Plastekiste
definitiv nicht wert.

Entschuldigt, wenn ich es so spröde und hart auf den Punkt bringe.

__________________
Wirkliche Anarchie kann nur funktionieren, wenn sich alle an die Regeln halten. (Horst Evers)

Hi Eric,

no, I don't think so. We asked the manufacturer about this function. DGT didn't confirm it.

And also the FAQ only contains this information:

"CAN I SEE MY PROGRESS FROM GAME TO GAME?

You cannot see your progress in the display. When you start winning more often in Friendly Mode, that is an indication of your progress. Then it is time to challenge yourself more and play a game in Challenging Mode."

(http://dgt.nl/index.php/support1/fre...ntaur-progress)

King regards,
Micha

Ich spiele gern Schach, aber ich habe keine Lust, mich mit Eröffnungstheorie und dem Auswendiglernen von Trilliarden Varianten zu befassen. ich möc hte einfach nur spielen.

Und für mich spielt ein Schachcomputer menschlich, wenn man aus der Eröffnung als menschlicher Gegner nicht schon aussichtslos heraus kommt, wenn man sich eben nicht quasi-wissenschaftlich damit auseinandersetzen möchte.

Das, was Du da oben im folgenden beschreibst, mögen Vereinsspieler und (Groß-)meister vielleicht für menschlich halten, für mich taugt so ein Gerät nicht.

__________________
Wirkliche Anarchie kann nur funktionieren, wenn sich alle an die Regeln halten. (Horst Evers)

Hello Frank,

Very interesting to read how everyone is thinking from his own level. I always like to use examples to make my point clear. If someones eyes are bad it makes no difference if he looks at a screen that is 4k, full HD or HD ready. For someone with perfect eyes it makes a big difference.
In chess my eyes are far from perfect and I hardly play games against humans. So it's hard to recognise a human failure for me made by the computer, I can recognise a stupid move though.

The human factor in a chess computer for you is way different than for me. What surprises me is that so many people speak about the human factor in chess computers, but what they do most is let chess computers play against each other. I would think that if a manufacturer is able to put a human factor in a chess computer, it is ment to play against humans.

I'm happy to see so many reactions on my article and I'm also happy to see that there are so many different opinions. Most interesting is to see how almost everyone's opinion is based on his own level and it seems to be hard to place yourself in an other level of experience, including myself. And that huge pleasure for one is inferior for another. Again, very interesting.

Greetings, Eric.