Sanny wrote:
Here are the Basic improvements made at
http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

1. Game speed improved

Maybe improved over previous versions, but still pathetic. It is still
up to 10 minutes instead of 10-20 seconds.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...755&game=Chess

A blatant example for incompetent programming.

2. Game thinking & analysis increased

Hardly worth commenting on after having played that game. Before you ask
which moves I am dissatisfied with, let me simply say that moves 4 to 38
were poor and move 39 was illegal.

3. Site is made more userfriendly go see the styles.
4. Game follows all rules correctly.

Stop lying, you've been told about this one a great many times:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...755&game=Chess

Sanny wrote:
2. Game thinking & analysis increased
Game play still too stupid

Could you show me recorded games where you are winning due to it's
stupid moves.

No. When your program plays in the time advertised, PERHAPS I'll
register and play recorded games. For now, recording games has no value
to me.


If we get a recorded game played by you and you point out
Move 35 was wrong due to xxxxxx reasions We may remove the errors and
in future you will get better games.

This is, without a doubt, the *silliest* way to try to improve a chess
program. No wonder the current program plays so badly.


Play recorded game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html and show it's
mistake.

Why should I do that?


Beginner Level is not good opponent for strong players. So try playing
with Easy & Normal.

I will play Easy & Normal when the program plays at the Beginner level
at the advertised speed. You would have to pay my daily rate to get me
to play the current Easy & Normal levels - and I don't think you can
afford me.

They will take a little longer but give you great
challenges to win and also we can see any mistake or time trouble you
get while playing recorded games and remove them.

No, I don't think you are capable of doing that. There is no evidence
to support such a conclusion.

Prove that you are competent - implement proper time controls and
enforce them. Compared with playing Expert level chess, this task is
really quite easy. The fact that you have not done this, despite
numerous complaints, is ample evidence that you are simply incompetent.


Bye
Sanny

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



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Bjoern wrote:

A blatant example for incompetent programming.

2. Game thinking & analysis increased


Hardly worth commenting on


So why bother - you only encourage him to write more spam.

3. Site is made more userfriendly go see the styles.
4. Game follows all rules correctly.


Stop lying, you've been told about this one a great many times:

So why bother to tell him something he has been told a great many times
before?

I can't help but feel if people stopped giving this Sanny feedback about
his site, he would finally get bored and perhaps go away and leave the
rec.games.chess.* newsgroups alone.



--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form:
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)

wrote:
help bot schrieb:
Sanny's program is still well short of any
commercial chess program I know of, so rest at ease.

That's a bit like saying a broken kick scooter is well short of any
Ferrari.

Well it is!

Here's a challenge: there are numerous free chess programs available on
the net. Find one, which is weaker than Sanny's!

Sanny's program uses a Java applet and in order for
such a test to be fair, the other programs would need
to run in a similar environment; otherwise you can get
an apples-to-oranges comparison which reflects upon
the difference in allocated hardware resources.

BTW, I have played chess programs which were *much*
weaker than Sanny's, just not on any recent hardware.

Many of the critics here are unaware of the real strength
of the program, for they either abandon games in progress
at a whim, or else play *unrecorded* games -- hinting that
they are afraid Sanny may one day cry "wolf", and instead
of a lamb, a wolf it will truly be. Here are some facts:

a) I am indisputably* a chess genius.

b) The program has lost many games to me, *but* --
it has also had me busted countless times. This
fact can easily be verified by looking over my games
at GetClub.com.

c) Other players use fake identities; abandon games in
progress; sometimes -- on rare occasions -- actually lose.

d) The obvious conclusion is that the program can
*sometimes* play reasonably well.

-- help bot



* A recent scientific study called such claims into
serious question, when a sample of my chess games
were carefully examined under a microscope and found
to contain a multitude of "miniscule blunders". These
organisms, once thought to be quite rare, are now
recognized to infest even the games of the greatest
players; for instance, "the immortal game", "the
greatest game ever played", and so forth. Up 'till
now, the common practice has been a heavy coat of
whitewash, mixed with denial. But some critics say
these only mask the symptoms, instead of treating
the disease. (Any ideas on how to eradicate these
annoying critics?)

1. Game speed improved

Maybe improved over previous versions, but still pathetic. It is still
up to 10 minutes instead of 10-20 seconds.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...755&game=Chess

A blatant example for incompetent programming.


I saw that game and found computer's Queen got trapped and to save it's
Queen it sacrificed it's knight and lost the match. It was interesting
game.

Your Rating at GetClub Chess is 1070 and you rank 8th among all
players. and ahead of other 100 Players. So you are a good player.

That game was played with Beginner Level, As you are good player, I
feel you should play with Higher Levels. Just like cfaz played with
Easy level and won.

cfaz rating is 1040 and he ranks 12th at GetClub Chess.

It thinks on fixed depth So in complex position it has to think longer
as there are lot of variations. It is only 2/3 moves where it takes
longer else most of the moves are played faster.

Bye
Sanny

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

help bot schrieb:

Sanny's program uses a Java applet and in order for
such a test to be fair, the other programs would need
to run in a similar environment; otherwise you can get
an apples-to-oranges comparison which reflects upon
the difference in allocated hardware resources.

No, for me as a user I absolutely don't care about those constraints
for the programmer.

BTW, I have played chess programs which were *much*
weaker than Sanny's, just not on any recent hardware.

Sure. But the challenge remains: a published program on current
machines playing against Sanny's program. Find a weaker one.

Many of the critics here are unaware of the real strength
of the program,

There was doubtless some progress, but it is still quite weak. I think,
when people lose against it, they just try too hard to win. Just relax
and play slowly. It will soon start making arbritrary moves without any
progress. You can slightly crash it positionally with a minimum of
effort, as it doesn't show the smallest positional intelligence.

Greetings,
Ralf

On 2007-01-09, Sanny wrote:
....
cfaz rating is 1040 and he ranks 12th at GetClub Chess.

Do you mean cfaj?

It thinks on fixed depth So in complex position it has to think longer
as there are lot of variations. It is only 2/3 moves where it takes
longer else most of the moves are played faster.

You have that backwards; it is only 2/3 moves where it plays in the
stated time. The vast majority are longer than claimed, and maybe
half take at least 10 times the stated time.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Ralf Callenberg wrote:
help bot schrieb:

Sanny's program uses a Java applet and in order for
such a test to be fair, the other programs would need
to run in a similar environment; otherwise you can get
an apples-to-oranges comparison which reflects upon
the difference in allocated hardware resources.

No, for me as a user I absolutely don't care about those constraints
for the programmer.

It is not the programmer which is constrained; it is the
user computer's resources. Heck, the mere fact that
I can run Windows and multiple browsers while Sanny's
chess program thinks in the background in itself shows
how this cannot be compared to any normal chess
program, which tries to hog as much resources as
possible to improve *playing strength* and for something
called *hashtables* -- two superfluous items which
Sanny's team have simply eliminated. ;D


BTW, I have played chess programs which were *much*
weaker than Sanny's, just not on any recent hardware.

Sure. But the challenge remains: a published program on current
machines playing against Sanny's program. Find a weaker one.

This one is quite weak enough for me; perhaps you
should do your own search? ;D

Many of the critics here are unaware of the real strength
of the program,

There was doubtless some progress, but it is still quite weak. I think,
when people lose against it, they just try too hard to win. Just relax
and play slowly. It will soon start making arbritrary moves without any
progress.

Proving my point. What you have just done is describe
in detail exactly how Sanny's program *used to* play. Now
I find that things are a bit more interesting -- but then, I am
not merely shifting wood myself. It is possible that the
real issue here is that you are shifting wood, and expecting
the chess program to come up with some interesting ideas?

You can slightly crash it positionally with a minimum of
effort, as it doesn't show the smallest positional intelligence.

This never bothered me; my complaint is and has been
that a computer has no excuse for being tactically
inferior to humans. Only if and when this problem is
overcome will I begin to groan about my vast superiority
in the realm of positional play. If and when the program
ever betters me in that area, I still have a few more items
I could whine about: the lighting, spectators (or a lack of
them), cameras, Russian cheaters, the prize money, etc.

-- gripe bot

Yesterday Zebediah beat 2 games at GetClub one with easy level and
other with Normal Level.

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

After the game was improved it was for first time Zebediah played at
GetClub, Lets see if he can beat the Master level the way he used to
beat earlier.

Zebediah ranks 5th at GetClub chess and have a rating of 1139. He and
Chrisf are the only players capable to beat Master Level one after
another. Soon we are going to see them in top 3.

Bye
Sanny

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

help bot wrote:

No, for me as a user I absolutely don't care about those constraints
for the programmer.

It is not the programmer which is constrained; it is the
user computer's resources.

Well, as he chose a browser-based program he was constrained in his
means he could use. That was what I wanted to say.

Heck, the mere fact that
I can run Windows and multiple browsers while Sanny's
chess program thinks in the background in itself shows
how this cannot be compared to any normal chess
program, which tries to hog as much resources as
possible to improve *playing strength* and for something
called *hashtables* -- two superfluous items which
Sanny's team have simply eliminated. ;D

The behaviour of the program depends on the Browser and the Java
Runtime Environment. On my system (WinXP, Pentium 4, Firefox, Sun JRE
1.6.0) for instance it takes all CPU he can get (which is 50%). I
doubt, that a desktop version of this applet starting in its own Java
Virtual Machine would be so much faster. If the same program would have
been implemented in C I would assume a speed gain of roughly a factor
of 2 - surely not much more. That Sanny's is running as an applet is no
explanation for its poor performance - at least not on systems like
mine.

This one is quite weak enough for me; perhaps you
should do your own search? ;D

Well, if I have time I might indeed look for weak programs. It would be
interesting which are the weakest programs available (instead of always
hunting for the strongest). I expect Sanny's to be a tough contender in
this "quest".

There was doubtless some progress, but it is still quite weak. I think,
when people lose against it, they just try too hard to win. Just relax
and play slowly. It will soon start making arbritrary moves without any
progress.

Proving my point. What you have just done is describe
in detail exactly how Sanny's program *used to* play.

No, it is still doing this. In a current game there is an attack
forming, and he has nothing better to do than ridiculous moves like h6,
f6 on the other side of the board. If you don't give him immediate
threats, he very likely makes nonsense moves.

Now
I find that things are a bit more interesting -- but then, I am
not merely shifting wood myself. It is possible that the
real issue here is that you are shifting wood, and expecting
the chess program to come up with some interesting ideas?

Well, if you did this with a strong program he would very soon come up
with interesting ideas... But no, that's not quite the way I play. I
just build up my attack very slowly. I bring my pieces in position,
double the rooks, prepare pawn attacks etc. He gives me all the time in
the world, no counter attack, nothing. He completely ignores my
preparations, as they don't include immediate threats. It's simply way
beyond his horizon. Even weak human players would realize what is going
on and would start *some* action. I couldn't win so easily against the
ELO 1400 players in my club. Have a look at the "best of" on his side -
the first 40 players have a record of something like 360 to 12.

Greetings,
Ralf