On May 4, 1:40 pm, zzz wrote:

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.

I'll take that as a compliment, but ChessChallenger7 is a mere human,
namely me :-).

Sorry. I assumed that the moniker was deliberately
chosen to make it clear that the player was merely
operating that particular chess computer. I did not
"examine" the games and then decide that, WOW,
these fantastic moves can only mean one thing... .

In Zeb's case, I have seen several of his games,
and the moves themselves clearly indicate that Zeb
is operating a chess computer.

There was some discussion here a while back,
about how well the GetClub program would likely
do versus other programs; next thing I know, the
new moniker popped up, and I assumed this was
a cause/result type of thing.


The original Chess Challenger 7 was a stand-alone chess computer made
in 1978 by Fidelity Electronics. I inherited one from my uncle in the
early 80's.

Someone told me flatly that his Fidelity Chess
Challenger 8 could "give anyone Queen odds". I
thought he was full of baloney, and promptly
started such a game to show what a silly idea
that was. After fighting the monstrosity for hours,
I just managed to win-- by a nose. Boy, did I feel
stupid.


It was my intention to have it play a couple of games against GetClub,
but unfortunately - and to my great disappointment - it was no longer
working :-(.
Since I had already made a login for it, I thought I might as well use
it and play a couple of games against GetClub myself.

So, how do you explain your 1. e4 -- the very same
move that CC7 preferred? ;D



A while back I did run a few games against GetClub with another
antique chess computer: Par Excellence (built in 1986, also by
Fidelity Electronics).
Par Excellence was leading by something like 8-1. Not bad, considering
it's running on hardware that's more than 500 times slower than the
machine that's running the GetClub applet.

I don't know much about how much a Java applet
slows things down. I do know that in spite of what
the rating lists now say about the older programs, at
one time the Par Excellence was considered to be
pretty good. Over the course of many years, I've
played several of the Fidelity computers.

I imagine that your 8-1 score only has meaning if
you also take into consideration the thinking times
for each side. In some of Sanny's experiments, he
was reporting greater numbers for Rybka, but then
it turned out that in fact, he had been shorting her
to compensate for the Java applet's slowness. Ever
since, it just seemed pointless to play those two
against one another-- except with Rybka giving
odds.


-- help bot