It does! I have no batteries inside, after powering it off using the keyboard I removed the power adapter, and the current position (and settings) resumed after a whole night without any provided power.

MfG,
Eric

Eric, thanks for the Information.

Hello dear chess friends,

I just completed the "Spacious Mind reloaded" test, running thru all five playing styles (and using 15s/move level).

Here is the detailed data (best scores are highlighted using yellow color):


And the summary graph:


As initially spotted, the passive styles definitely weaken the level, especially the 'very passive' one that looks like "suicide chess". Nonsense moves are too often played.
Aggressive styles are much more use-able, and can be chosen as alternative choices that still make sense. But obviously the normal style is proven best, according to the test.

MfG,
Tibono

Miniaturansicht angehängter Grafiken

   

Hi,

about the so-called "basic" levels, the manual is somewhat vague, even a bit obscure. I quote:
'Basic: The computer takes a certain average time per move ̶ shortest on level 1, longest on level 10.'

Very quick tests show level 1 is obviously much faster than level 10, therefore the manual statement is true, yet not much informative.
Nothing is shared about the thinking time behavior in-between the extreme levels 1 and 10; nothing about the average time per move you should expect.

From this thread:
In order to shed a ray of light, is used a stopwatch to assess the moves thinking time across two games from the Spacious Mind series: #1 F. DI CASTELLVI vs N. VINYOLES (41 half-moves), and #5 Capt. SMITH vs F.-A. DANICAN PHILIDOR (58 half-moves).

The first one is an open game, clear and rather tactical, and the second is a closed one, complex and rather positional. First tests revealed much faster moves in game #1 than game #2, thus providing an interesting range of measures. The average times result from the total time used over the whole game, both White and Black moves, divided by the number of played half-moves.

From the second game I also selected three positions where most levels spent a very large thinking time with regards to the usual ones, and I used the Save/Load feature to repeat these complex, time consuming positions for a dedicated, single move time measure.

Here is the data.

As you can read, the distribution of the thinking times is not simply rising from low to high levels; there is a breakthrough change at level 6. The ranking of levels do not result from an average time granted; the very large time occuring for complex positions using upper levels (variable minutes, as stated by Bryan) is typical of the search depth approach mentioned by Wolfgang.

Considering the thinking times that are very close per couple of levels 2-3, 4-5, 7-8 and 9-10, plus levels 1 and 6 that look apart, there must be something else than search depth creating the scaling of levels. I think this must involve software skills throttling, and the basic levels ranking would result from combining these with the search depth. Level 6 could be full strength evaluation combined with minimalist search depth, whilst level 5 would reach deeper depth but using limited evaluation.

From this point on, I understand why did the user manual not explain the basic levels in further details: that's too complex. They definitely are "levels" with the meaning of variable strength; the thinking time being no designed target - just an outcome.

As a conclusion, to keep something useful out of the data, I made this educated guess about the thinking times.

I bet the actual average times would fit within these, as the games I used did not involve long endgame phases, potentially reducing the overall average (per limited search depth effect).

MfG,
Tibono

Interessant, wenn ich hier einen Text in Englisch markiere, kann ich ihn direkt in Deutsch umwandeln lassen. Das funktioniert bei mir im Edge Browser.

Miniaturansicht angehängter Grafiken

   

Hallo Alle,
Und jetzt hat der kleine Schachcomputer diese Seite betreten (etwa in der Mitte der Seite) .
Natürlich ist das CElo ein sehr frühes.
MfG,
Tibono

Mir ist vorhin aufgefallen, nachdem ich den CC 2.0 erstmal an einer Schachaufgabe habe länger rechnen lassen, das er seine Zeitanzeige nach überschreiten von 10 Stunden ,also nach 9:59:59. auf Std. und min. umstellt, aktuell bei mir 17:58 , also 17Std:58min.

Und er läuft mit einer CPU: ARM Cortex M4 @48Mhz !

Das ist aber schnell

Chess Champion 2.0 findet hier den zum Gewinn führenden Zug 11.. h1=D oder Turm in 32 sek.

Nach exakt 92 Stunden und 15 HZ Rechentiefe zog der Chess Champion 2.0 bei diesem bekanntem Problem 1.Kd6-e5?
Gibt es bei 92 Std. vielleicht einen Stopp, oder war es Zufall? Alle Varianten durchgerechnet?
Nur Millennium weiß es.

Langzeittest bestanden, ,aber Lösung nicht gefunden.