Sanny wrote:
A while back, we were advised to not have multiple
browsers open because this slows the program down
too much, so I started using a single (Firefox) browser,
utilizing the "tabs" feature to switch back and forth
when I hear the sound signalling that the program has
moved. I don't see much of a difference in speed, but
I suppose it is likely my computer's "resources" are
used more efficiently with tabs instead of multiple
browser instances.

Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html

Using Tabs get result in error.

Say instead of Pressing Tab Twice and It points to another button. I
always use mouse clicks as it will always press the buttonm where it is
pointing to.

In using Tabs (Keyboard Interface) Sometimes we press ENTER KEYS while
wrong Button is selected.

In XP While Shut Down I never use tabs as It is always unclear which
button is currently selected.


Sanny, the old Internet Explorer lacked this new
feature (which Firefox has had for some time), but
the new one will have it. In fact, the new IE is out
now, and it has tabs. I am not certain exactly how
this works, but with tabs you can switch between
multiple windows in the same browser, instead of
running several instances of that browser, each
with just one "window". Each of these tabs represents
a seperate window in the browser.

As far as the "tab" key goes, I rarely use it. In fact,
I quite often catch myself using the notebook
equivalent of a mouse, where the tab key would have
been quicker and simpler. It's an old habit I developed
back when I was using a desktop computer, and the
mouse did everything but type out text. As I said, I
did not click the "resign game" button; I was reading
in another tab at the time the game ended abruptly,
opening a new browser where the game could be
replayed. It did not signal that it had moved by
playing a sound, so I had no reason to stop reading
and switch to the GetClub tab. As you can see, I
was about to deliver checkmate in two or three
more moves.

-----------

I saw the post about the prize winners for October,
and thought I'd have a look at Zebediah's games to
see if he was any good. The very first game I looked
at (and I stopped there) had him playing the master
level. Everything was going normally, when I noticed
that your program was about to get forked and lose
a piece. Sure enough, Zebediah moved his Queen
to threaten mate on the move, AND a loose Bishop.
But instead of defending against the instant mate, your
program just ignored that threat -- and this was on the
master level! What's up with that? I just don't
understand what sort of programming it is that allows
a shallow tactical threat like this to slip by. The one
strength of computers in chess is supposed to be
short-range tactics, where they *never* overlook the
obvious (unlike humans). In this one case, I would
have to say that you would have done better to use
the simplest program possible, just add up the
values of the men and see which move leads to the
smallest loss. K=100, Q=10, R=5, B=3, N=3, p=1
Clearly, on master level the program ought to be able
to "see" several plys deep in all variations, and even if
you got the piece values all wrong, so long as the King
is overweighted, the program will t least *try* to avoid
mate!

-- help bot