6 May
2020
6 May
'20
8:29 a.m.
So, I've come across an odd book that might interest some here: "Achieving
Accuray: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles", by Marshall William McMurray.
The first couple of chapters merely re-tell the story of earliest computers
(pre-elecronic and electronic), up through the IBM 701, Elliott 401, NCR 304,
SAGE, CDC 6600, IBM 7090, etc. Competent, but nothing special. Then it
gets interesting, though.
Chapter 4 is "Small Magnetic Drum Computers of the 1950s", and it covers a
bunch of machines I'd never heard of: JAINCOMP B-1 (!), MONROBOT III (!!),
CADAC 101, 102 (!!!) and on and on.
Chapter 5 is "Real-Time Control Computers", and it covers a long group of
machines: ALWAC I, II, III; Univac Athena; Autonetics Verdan D9A-L; Librascope
C-141 to name but a few. Pure gold, this chapter and the one before - retrieved
a lot of machines from the memory hole.
Chapter 6 is "NASA Control Computers", and it covers the usual suspects: IBM
ASC 15, IBM LVDC, IBM GDC, Librascope Centaur, AGC, IBM 4Pi. Some of these
are covered elseshere, but it's nice to have them all in one place.
Chapter 7 is "Late-Model High Speed Supercomputers", with quite a range:
starting with Cray 1, Sun, SGI, then the various ASCI array multi-processor
systems at LLNL, etc.
It then moved over to missiles, and goes through a similar progression,
starting early, with some details of WWII era stuff (e.g.Hs 293's), then a
chapter on V-1's amd V-2's and their derivatives.
More chapters on "Early US Missile Programs", NAA's inertialguidance work
and
its applications up through Polaris, Titans, etc. Then more on later US
missiles and their guidance systems, such as Minuteman, Trident and MX.
A lengthy Chapter 13 is "Soviet and Russian Land-Based Missile Systems", which
doesn't have quite the detail of the US chapters (in which the authot was
personally involved), but is still novel. Another chapter then finishes with
Soiet/Russian naval missiles.
A very unusual and off-beat work.
Noel
6 May
6 May
9:22 a.m.
Noel Chiappa wrote:
<snip>
Competent, but nothing special. Then it
gets interesting, though.
<snip>
MONROBOT III (!!),
Yes, the Monrobot is particularly interesting
because (among other things) it was reviewed
in the New Yorker magazine.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1960/03/19/portable-robot
Bill S.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
10:08 a.m.
Yes, the Monrobot is particularly interesting
because (among other things) it was reviewed
in the New Yorker magazine.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1960/03/19/portable-robot
That must have been quite a machine to beat a person five times in Tic Tac
Toe. Even the WOPR couldn't do that...
-Ali
7 May
7 May
6:45 a.m.
There are only a few winning and tying patterns for tic tac toe. There was a fellow that
made a relay logic that could play tic tac toe and would win against a human of at least
tie but never lose.
Checkers is one of the most complicated games.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Ali via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 10:08 AM
To: 'William Sudbrink' <wh.sudbrink at verizon.net>; 'General
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: RE: Odd book
Yes, the Monrobot is particularly interesting
because (among other things) it was reviewed
in the New Yorker magazine.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1960/03/19/portable-robot
That must have been quite a machine to beat a person five times in Tic Tac
Toe. Even the WOPR couldn't do that...
-Ali
9:28 p.m.
There are only a few winning and tying patterns for tic
tac toe. There was
a fellow that made a relay logic that >could play tic tac toe
and would win
against a human of at least tie but never lose.
Checkers is one of the most complicated games.
Dwight
Dwight,
I am not very familiar with the game theory of Tic Tac Toe. However, what
you say does make sense and in general I would think the best that can be
hoped for between adult player and a computer is a tie (barring no stupid
mistakes on the part of the human player). However, according to the New
Yorker article the Manrobot beat the human player five times in a row....
hence my quip about the WOPR.
-Ali
10:01 p.m.
There are only
a few winning and tying patterns for tic tac toe. There was
a fellow that made a
relay logic that >could play tic tac toe and would win
against a human of at least tie but never lose.
> Checkers is one of the most complicated games.
> Dwight I am not very familiar with the game theory of Tic Tac
Toe. However, what
you say does make sense and in general I would think the best that can be
hoped for between adult player and a computer is a tie (barring no stupid
mistakes on the part of the human player). However, according to the New
Yorker article the Manrobot beat the human player five times in a row....
hence my quip about the WOPR.
Consider the possibility that the writer took "did not lose 5 times in a
row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
11:06 p.m.
I wrote a program for TicTacToe back in 1975 for a Monroe Calculator. I had a cheat key
you could use to launch the game which would allow to win, it only would stop obvious
winning situations, otherwise, the calculator would win or tie. My 8 year old sister
played so bad, she beat it in winning mode!!!
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 1:01 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
?
There are only a few winning and tying patterns
for tic tac toe. There was
a fellow that made a relay logic that >could play tic
tac toe and would win
against a human of at least tie but never lose.
> Checkers is one of the most complicated games.
> Dwight I am not very familiar with the game theory of
Tic Tac Toe. However, what
you say does make sense and in general I would think the best that can be
hoped for between adult player and a computer is a tie (barring no stupid
mistakes on the part of the human player). However, according to the New
Yorker article the Manrobot beat the human player five times in a row....
hence my quip about the WOPR.
Consider the possibility that the writer took "did not lose 5 times in a row",
and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
8 May
8 May
1:11 a.m.
Consider the possibility that the writer took
"did not lose 5 times in
a
row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We got trimmed in five straight
games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong or am
I missing something?
-Ali
4:15 a.m.
"Trimmed" is a term meaning "scammed" back in the 1920's usually
by a
confidence man. The goal of a confidence game was typically to "trim a
mark" for example.
In this context the author was probably saying that not only did they
get beaten, they got beaten bad in what appeared to be a "rigged game".
I highly recommend the book "The Big Con" by David Maurer. Written in
the mid to late 1930's it's a fascinating and informative look into the
language, argot, and methods of the classic confidence man. A skill that
seems to be coming back into vogue these days....
C
On 5/8/2020 4:11 AM, Ali via cctalk wrote:
Consider the
possibility that the writer took "did not lose 5 times in
a
row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We got trimmed in five straight
games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong or am
I missing something?
-Ali
5:24 a.m.
On 2020-05-08 7:15 AM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
"Trimmed" is a term meaning
"scammed" back in the 1920's usually by a
confidence man. The goal of a confidence game was typically to "trim a
mark" for example.
In this context the author was probably saying that not only did they
get beaten, they got beaten bad in what appeared to be a "rigged game".
Alright, you got me -- how do you "rig" TTT?
--Toby
I highly recommend the book "The Big Con" by David Maurer. Written in
the mid to late 1930's it's a fascinating and informative look into the
language, argot, and methods of the classic confidence man. A skill that
seems to be coming back into vogue these days....
C
On 5/8/2020 4:11 AM, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>> Consider the possibility that the writer took "did not lose 5 times in
>> a
>> row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
>
> Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We got trimmed in five straight
> games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
> pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
> player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong
> or am
> I missing something?
>
> -Ali
>
9:15 p.m.
"Trimmed" is a term meaning
"scammed" back in the 1920's usually by a
confidence man. The goal of a confidence game was typically to "trim a
mark" for example.
In this context the author was probably saying that not only did they
get beaten, they got beaten bad in what appeared to be a "rigged game".
Thanks for the info. So is he saying it was rigged or that the only way they could win 5
times in a row was if it was rigged? ;). It is interesting how slang and even common words
change meaning and connotation over the years so that one generation reading something
even as recently as a 100 years ago would run into issues.
12:29 p.m.
> > However, according to the New Yorker article
the Manrobot beat the
> > human player five times in a row....
> Consider the possibility that the writer took
"did not lose 5 times in
> a
> row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We got
trimmed in five straight
games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong or am
I missing something?
One of the problems with the use of street slang is that it changes,
sometimes rapidly. a 1920s meaning is not necessarily the same as the
meaning half a century or more later.
"We got trimmed" is not the same as "it beat the human player".
Beating the human player is possible only if the human player does not
play well. A competent human player (no misteaks) would be able to force
a draw. As games go, it's not a great one, because once both players
learn it, then winning isn't going to happen. To make it into a practical
game, one could add a level of chance or skill to be able to make a
move, rather then simple CHOICE (as was done by some TV game shows)
Otherwise, first player takes center;
other player takes a corner;
first player takes opposite corner, . . .
IFF the writer knew what had happened, it would be reasonable to claim,
"the computer DID NOT LOSE five times in a row."
Is THAT what the writer meant by "trimmed"?
OR, did the writer simply not understand the POSSIBLE outcomes of the
competition?
1:23 p.m.
Remember, back in the 60's people really didn't take game theory very
seriously. That's why that Merlin game's tic tac toe was so popular.
Nowadays we have u tube to show us how to win at TTT. Back then not so much.
C
On 5/8/2020 3:29 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> >
However, according to the New Yorker article the Manrobot beat the
> > human player five times in a row....
> Consider the possibility that the writer took
"did not lose 5 times in
> a
> row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We
got trimmed in five straight
games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong
or am
I missing something?
One of the problems with the use of street slang is that it changes,
sometimes rapidly.? a 1920s meaning is not necessarily the same as the
meaning half a century or more later.
"We got trimmed" is not the same as "it beat the human player".
Beating the human player is possible only if the human player does not
play well.? A competent human player (no misteaks) would be able to
force a draw.? As games go, it's not a great one, because once both
players learn it, then winning isn't going to happen.? To make it into a
practical game, one could add a level of chance or skill to be able to
make a move, rather then simple CHOICE (as was done by some TV game shows)
Otherwise, first player takes center;
other player takes a corner;
first player takes opposite corner, . . .
IFF the writer knew what had happened, it would be reasonable to claim,
"the computer DID NOT LOSE five times in a row."
Is THAT what the writer meant by "trimmed"?
OR, did the writer simply not understand the POSSIBLE outcomes of the
competition? 
3:17 p.m.
On 08/05/2020 21:23, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
Remember, back in the 60's people really
didn't take game theory very
seriously. That's why that Merlin game's tic tac toe was so popular.
Nowadays we have u tube to show us how to win at TTT. Back then not so
much.
If you can't work out TTT (or OXO) without youtube then you've got no
chance with ... well pretty much any game :-)
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
9:19 p.m.
Beating the human player is possible only if the human
player does not
play well. A competent human player (no misteaks) would be able to
force
a draw.
Agree completely. However, I am not sure if the sales manager would be as
pleased for a simple draw. After all it does not show the superiority of his
computer. But this is the 60s so maybe a draw was good enough!
-Ali
7 May
7 May
9:56 a.m.
Thanks for the recoomendation Noel, I?ve ordered a copy. Looking forward to when it
arrives!
Cheers
Sytse
On 6 May 2020, at 17:29, Noel Chiappa via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
So, I've come across an odd book that might interest some here: "Achieving
Accuray: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles", by Marshall William McMurray.
The first couple of chapters merely re-tell the story of earliest computers
(pre-elecronic and electronic), up through the IBM 701, Elliott 401, NCR 304,
SAGE, CDC 6600, IBM 7090, etc. Competent, but nothing special. Then it
gets interesting, though.
Chapter 4 is "Small Magnetic Drum Computers of the 1950s", and it covers a
bunch of machines I'd never heard of: JAINCOMP B-1 (!), MONROBOT III (!!),
CADAC 101, 102 (!!!) and on and on.
Chapter 5 is "Real-Time Control Computers", and it covers a long group of
machines: ALWAC I, II, III; Univac Athena; Autonetics Verdan D9A-L; Librascope
C-141 to name but a few. Pure gold, this chapter and the one before - retrieved
a lot of machines from the memory hole.
Chapter 6 is "NASA Control Computers", and it covers the usual suspects: IBM
ASC 15, IBM LVDC, IBM GDC, Librascope Centaur, AGC, IBM 4Pi. Some of these
are covered elseshere, but it's nice to have them all in one place.
Chapter 7 is "Late-Model High Speed Supercomputers", with quite a range:
starting with Cray 1, Sun, SGI, then the various ASCI array multi-processor
systems at LLNL, etc.
It then moved over to missiles, and goes through a similar progression,
starting early, with some details of WWII era stuff (e.g.Hs 293's), then a
chapter on V-1's amd V-2's and their derivatives.
More chapters on "Early US Missile Programs", NAA's inertialguidance work
and
its applications up through Polaris, Titans, etc. Then more on later US
missiles and their guidance systems, such as Minuteman, Trident and MX.
A lengthy Chapter 13 is "Soviet and Russian Land-Based Missile Systems", which
doesn't have quite the detail of the US chapters (in which the authot was
personally involved), but is still novel. Another chapter then finishes with
Soiet/Russian naval missiles.
A very unusual and off-beat work.
Noel
8 May
8 May
8:35 p.m.
On 5/6/2020 10:29 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
So, I've come across an odd book that might
interest some here: "Achieving
Accuray: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles", by Marshall William McMurray.
The first couple of chapters merely re-tell the story of earliest computers
(pre-elecronic and electronic), up through the IBM 701, Elliott 401, NCR 304,
SAGE, CDC 6600, IBM 7090, etc. Competent, but nothing special. Then it
gets interesting, though.
Chapter 4 is "Small Magnetic Drum Computers of the 1950s", and it covers a
bunch of machines I'd never heard of: JAINCOMP B-1 (!), MONROBOT III (!!),
CADAC 101, 102 (!!!) and on and on.
I have the paper tape reader off of a Monrobot, IIRC. Not sure which
generation.
JRJ
1449
days inactive
1452
days old
16 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
bobh＠tds.net -
cclist＠sytse.net -
cctalk＠ibm51xx.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cube1＠charter.net -
cz＠alembic.crystel.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
wh.sudbrink＠verizon.net