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.

If you can spot any mistake in GetClubs game I can improve it further.

Please see the game and let me know which were the moves that were
wrong.

Advance Level thinks for 30 min/ move So it is very difficult for me
to find mistakes in Advance level game. Anyone having Commercial
program please do the analysis and let me know which were the moves
which were wrong by GetClub that Zebediah managed to win in just 34
moves.

Remember Advance level plays better than Rybka So you must analyze for
longer hours to give any good reasion.

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


Game Played between zebediah and advance at GetClub.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...903&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(zebediah) -- (advance)

1. e2-e4{6} c7-c5{0}
2. Ng1-f3{6} d7-d6{0}
3. d2-d4{4} c5-d4{0}
4. Nf3-d4{4} Ng8-f6{0}
5. Nb1-c3{6} e7-e5{2936}
6. Nd4-b5{26} a7-a6{1486}
7. Nb5-a3{4082} b7-b5{2074}
8. Nc3-d5{12} Bc8-e6{1688}
9. Bc1-g5{1676} Be6-d5{2220}
10. e4-d5{330} Qd8-a5{1444}
11. Bg5-d2{3038} Qa5-b6{1664}
12. c2-c4{188} Nb8-d7{1740}
13. c4-b5{104} Qb6-d4{2188}
14. Na3-c2{470} Qd4-d5{1930}
15. b5-a6{8} Qd5-e4{2428}
16. Bf1-e2{234} Ra8-c8{1372}
17. Nc2-e3{146} d6-d5{1470}
18. Ke1-g1{514} d5-d4{2022}
19. Ne3-g4{2370} Bf8-d6{2848}
20. Ng4-f6{40} Nd7-f6{1844}
21. Be2-b5{22} Ke8-f8{1570}
22. Ra1-c1{518} Qe4-a8{3138}
23. Rc1-c8{104} Qa8-c8{2868}
24. a6-a7{128} Nf6-d5{1558}
25. Qd1-g4{9374} Qc8-d8{2452}
26. Bb5-c6{410} Nd5-f6{1798}
27. Qg4-f5{136} Kf8-e7{2228}
28. Rf1-e1{78} Rh8-e8{1954}
29. Re1-e5{1294} Bd6-e5{2270}
30. Qf5-e5{164} Ke7-f8{2438}
31. Bc6-e8{34} d4-d3{2956}
32. Be8-c6{192} Nf6-d5{1938}
33. Qe5-d5{52} Qd8-d5{2212}
34. Bd2-b4{8990} Qd5-c6{0}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...903&game=Chess

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

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

Bye
Sanny

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

On May 3, 1:56 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.


If you can spot any mistake in GetClubs game I can improve it further.

Please see the game and let me know which were the moves that were
wrong.

The GetClub program neglects normal piece development
in favor of marauding Queen moves. This is a hallmark of
most weak /human/ players as well.


Advance Level thinks for 30 min/ move So it is very difficult for me
to find mistakes in Advance level game. Anyone having Commercial
program please do the analysis and let me know which were the moves
which were wrong by GetClub that Zebediah managed to win in just 34
moves.

Rather than try to pinpoint specific moves, it may
help to simply point out that in this loss, just as in
many, many others, the program "forgot" to develop
its King-side pieces and castle. The result is that
much of the game if fought with just half its army.


Remember Advance level plays better than Rybka So you must analyze for
longer hours to give any good reasion.

Yes, the Advance level is probably around 3500--
3600 strength now. This is why the 3000-rated Rybka
program can only give it Knight or perhaps Rook
odds, and no more. With Queen odds I expect the
GetClub Advance level would /eventually/ prevail.



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

Zeb is quite obviously using some other chess
program.


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

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.


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.

You need to coax the program into developing its
pieces and bringing its King to safety, instead of
chasing after spite-checks and wild tactical
skirmishes, the result of which is very unclear.

For instance, a while back you explained that the
reason it was losing via N-g5, Nxf7 suicide attacks
was that you gave a large bonus for spite-checks,
which of course was backfiring against decent
opponents (although it might work against weaker
ones).

I wouldn't worry too much about losing to Zeb's
chess program; for all we know, it could be one of
the strongest in the world, and even if the Rybka
program were "ported" to Java, you would still
lose on processing speed.


-- help bot

On May 4, 12:04*am, help bot wrote:
On May 3, 1:56 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.

If you can spot any mistake in GetClubs game I can improve it further.

Please see the game and let me know which were the moves that were
wrong.

* The GetClub program neglects normal piece development
in favor of marauding Queen moves. *This is a hallmark of
most weak /human/ players as well.

Yes, I will look into that and see why it does that.

Advance Level thinks for 30 min/ move So it is very difficult for me
to find mistakes in Advance level game. Anyone having Commercial
program please do the analysis and let me know which were the moves
which were wrong byGetClubthat Zebediah managed to win in just 34
moves.

* Rather than try to pinpoint specific moves, it may
help to simply point out that in this loss, just as in
many, many others, the program "forgot" to develop
its King-side pieces and castle. *The result is that
much of the game if fought with just half its army.

Ok I will see if that can be corrected.

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

* Zeb is quite obviously using some otherchess
program.

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

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

* 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.

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.

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

* You need to coax the program into developing its
pieces and bringing its King to safety, instead of
chasing after spite-checks and wild tactical
skirmishes, the result of which is very unclear.

* For instance, a while back you explained that the
reason it was losing via N-g5, Nxf7 suicide attacks
was that you gave a large bonus for spite-checks,
which of course was backfiring against decent
opponents (although it might work against weaker
ones).

That was because of a bug and that bug has been removed 5 days back.

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

* I wouldn't worry too much about losing to Zeb'schessprogram;
for all we know, it could be one of
the strongest in the world, and even if the Rybka
program were "ported" to Java, you would still
lose on processing speed.

I am glad Zebediah is using his strong program to play with GetClub So
that I may find weakness in GetClubs game. I think with the
improvements you sugested the game will further continue +10. And
Zebediah will need 40-50 moves to win against the Advance Level.

Bye
Sanny

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

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

* 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 onechessposition 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?

Now your advice was understood and a penalty was given for Queen
giving spite checks and moving arround.

Now I think Zebediah will take +10 moves to win the Advance Level. And
it will be much difficult for you to win games now as it will develop
its pieces first inspite of giving Checks.

I am now going to play a game against Rybka and see if the improvement
is useful or not and post the game below for you to see how good it
plays against Rybka.

I wonder why many times Rybka program just Hangs and I am unable to
finish the game. May be it disconnects.

Bye
Sanny

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

I am now going to play a game against Rybka and see if the improvement
is useful or not and post the game below for you to see how good it
plays against Rybka.

Here is the Game Rybka wins Easy Level in just 33 moves. Despite the
improvements suggested by you Rybka had the upper hand.

But Still GetClub handled the position for quite sometime.

Do you see that the program now do not take out the Queen aimlessly.

What else can be done to improve GetClub?

Do you still see something wrong in GetClubs play other than Tactics?


Game Played between Rybka and easy at GetClub.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka : (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...930&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(Rybka ) -- (easy)

1. e2-e4{18} e7-e5{0}
2. Ng1-f3{16} Nb8-c6{0}
3. Bf1-b5{14} a7-a6{0}
4. Bb5-a4{14} d7-d6{0}
5. c2-c3{14} b7-b5{24}
6. Ba4-c2{16} Ng8-f6{32}
7. d2-d4{14} e5-d4{24}
8. c3-d4{14} Bc8-g4{22}
9. Ke1-g1{16} Nc6-b4{34}
10. Bc2-b3{18} Nf6-e4{24}
11. a2-a3{16} d6-d5{22}
12. a3-b4{20} c7-c6{54}
13. Qd1-c2{14} Qd8-c8{28}
14. Nf3-e5{18} Bg4-d7{24}
15. Nb1-c3{36} Ne4-f6{26}
16. Qc2-e2{18} Bd7-e6{32}
17. Nc3-a4{24} Ra8-b8{34}
18. Na4-c5{16} Bf8-c5{26}
19. b4-c5{16} Ke8-g8{30}
20. Bb3-c2{16} Rf8-d8{24}
21. Rf1-e1{20} Rb8-a8{56}
22. Qe2-d3{22} h7-h6{38}
23. Qd3-g3{24} Kg8-f8{44}
24. Qg3-f3{18} Be6-g4{20}
25. Qf3-f4{16} h6-h5{22}
26. h2-h3{24} Bg4-d7{34}
27. Qf4-f3{16} Bd7-e8{32}
28. Bc1-g5{20} Nf6-e4{28}
29. Ne5-g6{32} Kf8-g8{48}
30. Ng6-e7{16} Kg8-f8{22}
31. Ne7-c8{18} Ne4-g5{20}
32. Qf3-h5{14} Ng5-h3{24}
33. g2-h3{16} Kf8-g8{22}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka : (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...930&game=Chess

So what are the moves that you think are wrong by GetClub?

Bye
Sanny

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

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 :-).

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.
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.

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.

A while back I did run a few games againstGetClubwith another
antiquechesscomputer: 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 theGetClubapplet.

Try again, I am sure you will see a lot of difference as now the
GetClub game plays much better that it used to earlier.

Can "Par Excellence" still beat the GetClub Chess? How much time you
give to each move? There is one username: "Par Excellence" at GetClub
is that you?

GetClub is improving a lot these days due to Help Bots advices and the
games you play.

Bye
Sanny

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

On May 4, 3:23 am, Sanny wrote:

I am now going to play a game against Rybka and see if the improvement
is useful or not and post the game below for you to see how good it
plays against Rybka.

Here is the Game Rybka wins Easy Level in just 33 moves. Despite the
improvements suggested by you Rybka had the upper hand.

But Still GetClub handled the position for quite sometime.

Do you see that the program now do not take out the Queen aimlessly.

What else can be done to improve GetClub?


One thing you cannot compete against is the raw
speed of calculation of the top chess programs.
Where your Java applet may indicate, say, a depth
of twelve plys, such a program as Rybka or Fritz
might well be looking much deeper in the same
amount of time.

I don't know much about all the tricks that modern
programmers use to speed up the search; in fact, I
doubt I could implement "pruning" without a lot of
help, let alone more sophisticated tricks. I do know
that a program that cannot get the basics of tactics
down pat is not likely to compete, since basic tactics
are the keystone of strong chess. In fact, even if you
wrote a program which was as dumb as a box of
rocks when it came to positional play, if it was very
strong at tactics it would probably beat most human
opponents more often than not.


-- help bot

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