On May 4, 1:16 am, Sanny wrote:

A week back Zebediah used to win in 20-30 moves but now the GetClubs
game was a bit improved now Zebediah takes 35 moves to win against the
Advance Level.

That was just one game; you can't draw sweeping
conclusions from the lengths of single games.

Actually Last 2 games First he took 40 moves to win and in second game
he took 35 moves to win against Advance Level. Earlier he used to win
in 20-30 moves. So I see +10 moves needed for him to win after the Bug
was removed.


But the length of a game -- or two -- only indicates
how sharp the play was, how wild and woolly the
tactics. It is a rather poor indicator of chess strength,
unless you have a large sample size and are
comparing players with similar styles. I imagine
that Tigran Petrosian -- a former world champ -- may
very well have taken three times longer to win than,
say, Zeb-the-computer-operator does. Does that
mean he was "weak"?


I do not understand how zebediah manages to win Advance in just 35-40
Moves?

Zeb is quite obviously using some other chess
program.

It is because of Zrb I am able to improve the game further as he is
able to kill the program with ease.


But anybody -- including you -- with a commercial
program can "kill" the GetClub program with ease.
Most modern chess engines are around 2600-3000
strength, running on modern hardware.


After analyzing the game with Computer have you found any mistake in
Advance Levels Game?


I can run that particular game through to try
and pinpoint specific "sub-optimal" moves, but
all that would accomplish is a wasteful focusing
on one chess position out of bazillions. The
obvious (to me) problem is that the program is
going for spite-checks and chasing after pawns
with its Queen, when it ought to be developing
*all* its pieces. Do you really think you can
"improve" the program more by focusing on a
single move from a single game, than by fixing
a serious problem which affects *many* such
games?


It doesn't require a computer to do that. One move
that was sub-optimal is 34. ...Qxc6. Generally
speaking, one should always avoid allowing one's
King to be captured for no reason.

Since the game Resigned at 34th move Actually Advance has found a Mate
in 10 or 12 and in such cases all moves are of equal score.


If Zeb-the-computer-operator is bothering you
so much, why not focus more on strong defense?
First and foremost, the King should be protected,
even if moves are somehow hidden from view;
saving time by scoring all moves as equal when
losing is of no advantage; why not go ahead and
try to score moves correctly, from beginning to
end? Avoid being checkmated, or, if that is
impossible, delay the loss for as long as, um,
"humanly" possible. The same goes for losing
material.


Is it making Tactical Mistakes or it is doing Strategy Mistake. Please
Explain the mistake So that I really undersatand what went wrong.

Oh dear, that is a very tall order.

Thanks for your help. I will update the program and lets see if it can
play a bit better with the suggestions you made.


It's already playing a fairly tough game. I note
that Zeb is using a computer, and someone
called ChessChallenger7 is obviously doing so
as well. It is possible that many of the loses
are not to human opponents, but to other chess
engines.

You may not realize it, but many of the more
recent complaints were not about your program
being /weak/; they were and always have been
about your gross exaggerations, including all
the claims to have removed alleged "bugs" or
to have made the program stronger than Rybka
and so forth. Only a relative few have tried to
maintain that, because you say it's strength is
2400, it must really be about 400. Personally,
I think its strength in tactics makes it a very
dangerous opponent to most humans, just as
with other chess programs. Any weaknesses
in the endgame may be moot against most
human opponents, because... before the
endgame, the gods have placed the middle
game (and the opening).


-- help bot