Here we go again. You two seem to place
your own /convenience/ ahead of such things
as getting meaningful results. Try playing
the two programs against one another on
two separate machines, so there is **no
possibility** of what is discussed above.

In fact, I place a high value on my convenience as I am not paid to
evaluate GitClub, and anything I do is likely to be rough and ready.
But despite your clever comments, a little thought shows that doing a
true scientific evaluation in a home environment is extremely
difficult. To really do things correctly, a laboratory environment,
with a pair of identically configured machines, would be necessary.
Additional knowledge about the workings of the two programs being
competed would also be required --- answering the question, for
instance, of whether one machine thinks on the other machine's time
has nothing to do with whether the contest takes place on one physical
box or two, though the effect on the results will definitely differ.
Often, from the available user options and the available
documentation, it is not at all clear what is going on, and detailed
monitoring could be required to determine the answers.

My goal has been simply to provide anecdotal information, not
scientific test results for which my home environment is not well
suited. Enough anecdotal information, however, may at least give some
idea of the strength of GitClub. This is the difference between
scientific method, which requires controlled conditions and sufficient
data, and intelligence analysis, which recognizes that complete
information can't be gathered and draws conclusions --- at times
erroneous to be sure --- from what is available and what actually
*can* be gathered.

But constantly running into bugs has soured my enthusiasm. While I
have been able to finish some games with GC, spending an hour of
precious spare time only to find yet another frustrating bug is not
what I wish to do any longer. However, if you are indeed willing, and
are equipped for laboratory grade testing, and you will do it merely
for a supply of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, I am sure something can be
worked out.

On Feb 24, 8:16*pm, " wrote:
* Here we go again. *You two seem to place
your own /convenience/ ahead of such things
as getting meaningful results. *Try playing
the two programs against one another on
two separate machines, so there is **no
possibility** of what is discussed above.

In fact, I place a high value on my convenience as I am not paid to
evaluate GitClub, and anything I do is likely to be rough and ready.
But despite your clever comments, a little thought shows that doing a
true scientific evaluation in a home environment is extremely
difficult. *To really do things correctly, a laboratory environment,
with a pair of identically configured machines, would be necessary.
Additional knowledge about the workings of the two programs being
competed would also be required --- answering the question, for
instance, of whether one machine thinks on the other machine's time
has nothing to do with whether the contest takes place on one physical
box or two, though the effect on the results will definitely differ.
Often, from the available user options and the available
documentation, it is not at all clear what is going on, and detailed
monitoring could be required to determine the answers.

My goal has been simply to provide anecdotal information, not
scientific test results for which my home environment is not well
suited. *Enough anecdotal information, however, may at least give some
idea of the strength of GitClub. *This is the difference between
scientific method, which requires controlled conditions and sufficient
data, and intelligence analysis, which recognizes that complete
information can't be gathered and draws conclusions --- at times
erroneous to be sure --- from what is available and what actually
*can* be gathered.

But constantly running into bugs has soured my enthusiasm. *While I
have been able to finish some games with GC, spending an hour of
precious spare time only to find yet another frustrating bug is not
what I wish to do any longer. *However, if you are indeed willing, and
are equipped for laboratory grade testing, and you will do it merely
for a supply of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, I am sure something can be
worked out.

It is GETCLUB and NOT GITCLUB

Bye
Sanny

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

On Feb 23, 1:11*am, Sanny wrote:

Beginner: 2100 [5-10 sec/move]
Easy: 2200 [20-40 sec/move]
Normal: 2300 [1-2 min / move]
Master: 2400 [5-10 min / move]


You are incredibly deluded with regard to the strength
of your program to say the least. While it has reasonable
enough tactical strength, perhaps 1600/1700/1800/2000,
this is paired with a strategic strength (ie evaluation
function) and engame ability that compares unfavorably
to that of a 1000 scholastic player. Overall it seems to
be 1200 - 1600 in strength, if that. With a reasonably
deep opening book it would probably be 1600+ in strength
and be able to beat most players simply by never reaching
an ending where it is incredibly weak.

The program also has a very poor interface and incredibly
anoying background sounds. I cannot believe that these
haven't been corrected long ago.

On another note, the length of the games it plays have a
very low correlation to it's actual strength. Given that your
program doesn't resign in postions that are hopelessly
lost the games are extended to an urealistic length.

I occasionally play a bit against Crafty 5.0 scoring about
25% against it in 5 and 15 minute games. This program
is vastly stronger then yours but would equally be
crushed by Rybka. Frankly I am confident that the very
first computer chess program I had, Chessmaster,
would also crush your program.

None of this is meant to disuade you from your efforts.
A powerful program that doesn't use stored openings
and engame table bases would be quite interesting.
Unfortunately your deluded statements here with
regard to the playing strength of your program at this
time make you seem like a complete idiot.

It is GETCLUB and NOT GITCLUB

Bye
Sanny

Actually, I was attempting a transcontinental play on words, using
both British and American expressions, as in:

"GitClub -- where the gits git together to play chess."

I occasionally play a bit against Crafty 5.0 scoring about
25% against it in 5 and 15 minute games. This program
is vastly stronger then yours but would equally be
crushed by Rybka. Frankly I am confident that the very
first computerchessprogram I had, Chessmaster,
would also crush your program.

Crafty uses power of all processors in quad core and dual core.
further it thinks in opponents move also these make it much better
than getclub chess. Further Applet is generally slower than C /
Assembly language program.

However that rating was wrong as that was based on single game against
Rybka.

I find Normally Beginner Level plays till 30 moves against Rybka.
Easy Level plays till 35 moves against Rybka.
and Normal Level plays till 40 moves against Rybka.

So I think
Beginner: 1800 (5-10 sec/move)
Easy: 1900 (20-40 sec/move)
Normal: 2000 (1-2 min/move)
Master: 2100 (5-10 min/move)

Bye
Sanny

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

On Feb 24, 10:16 am, "
wrote:

Here we go again. You two seem to place
your own /convenience/ ahead of such things
as getting meaningful results. Try playing
the two programs against one another on
two separate machines, so there is **no
possibility** of what is discussed above.

In fact, I place a high value on my convenience as I am not paid to
evaluate GitClub, and anything I do is likely to be rough and ready.
But despite your clever comments, a little thought shows that doing a
true scientific evaluation in a home environment is extremely
difficult. To really do things correctly, a laboratory environment,
with a pair of identically configured machines, would be necessary.
Additional knowledge about the workings of the two programs being
competed would also be required --- answering the question, for
instance, of whether one machine thinks on the other machine's time
has nothing to do with whether the contest takes place on one physical
box or two, though the effect on the results will definitely differ.
Often, from the available user options and the available
documentation, it is not at all clear what is going on, and detailed
monitoring could be required to determine the answers.

My goal has been simply to provide anecdotal information, not
scientific test results for which my home environment is not well
suited. Enough anecdotal information, however, may at least give some
idea of the strength of GitClub. This is the difference between
scientific method, which requires controlled conditions and sufficient
data, and intelligence analysis, which recognizes that complete
information can't be gathered and draws conclusions --- at times
erroneous to be sure --- from what is available and what actually
*can* be gathered.

But constantly running into bugs has soured my enthusiasm. While I
have been able to finish some games with GC, spending an hour of
precious spare time only to find yet another frustrating bug is not
what I wish to do any longer. However, if you are indeed willing, and
are equipped for laboratory grade testing, and you will do it merely
for a supply of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, I am sure something can be
worked out.

Whenever a situation arises where, say, two
machines are unequal in speed, I would just
give Sanny's program the faster machine, as
it needs all the help it can get. ;D

From Sanny's commentary it is unclear
which version of Rybka he uses, how many
times he went to get a drink of water vs.
Rybka "thinking" during the times he reports,
and so forth; in sum, for all we know he may
be giving Rybka beta 0.001 only one second
per move to think, and this could explain his
funky results.

I think someone else could do better---
MUCH better than this. Yes, there are big
problems, like the fact that he keeps on
modifying the program at random, weaker
and then stronger, back and forth like a
pendulum. With a "normal" tester, we
might at least be able to discern the
version of Rybka being tested, and maybe
the technical problems would tend to
balance out, and not all be reported as
GetClub "winning" because the opponent
"resigned".

Maybe my hopes are set to high; maybe
Sanny's style of reporting is up to the
standards which are acceptable to the
average Joe; maybe. But I don't think so!

Personally, I find lots of blunders when
going over such games with Fritz 5.32-- a
very outdated program which is far weaker
than Rybka. So it makes sense to give
the GetClub program a sizable handicap,
and see what (the real) Rybka can do.

Maybe I will do this myself-- eventually.
I have downloaded free versions of such
programs as "Rebel" and "Shredder", and
it might prove interesting if I can guess
the proper handicaps somehow. I have
the hardware... strewn about everywhere.

Seriously, I don't see how anyone can
play two engines on the same machine
and not realize there is a good chance
that this is mucking up the testing
process; if we wanted to muck it up, we
could just send Sanny the Twinkies-- he
is like Ace Ventura-- the best there is at
mucking up! Everybody will be "resigned"
and GetClub will win every test; the
Russians did not fix world chess; Sanny
did!


-- help bot

On Feb 26, 10:07*am, Sanny wrote:

Crafty uses power of all processors in quad core and dual core.
further it thinks in opponents move also these make it much better
than getclub chess. Further Applet is generally slower than C /
Assembly language program.

However that rating was wrong as that was based on single game against
Rybka.

I find Normally Beginner Level plays till 30 moves against Rybka.
Easy Level plays till 35 moves against Rybka.
and Normal Level plays till 40 moves against Rybka.

So I think
Beginner: 1800 (5-10 sec/move)
Easy: 1900 (20-40 sec/move)
Normal: 2000 (1-2 min/move)
Master: 2100 (5-10 min/move)

Bye
Sanny

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

Still grossly optomistic to say the least.
First off the PC I use for internet surfing and gaming
is an old 1 GHz AMD Athalon with 512 MB of RAM
So the comments about Quad and Dual Core
processors do not apply. As for Crafty thinking on
a human's time - humans do the exact same thing
and I fail to understand why your program does not
do the same! Finally any inefficiencies in your
program due to the development platform chosen
are beyond my ability to assist you with.

There is no way Beginner and Easy are 1800/1900
in strength, I stick by my 1200-1400 estimates.
As for Normal/Master, my time is too valuable to
toss it away on such an unrewarding endeavor.

Further improvements of GetClub Chess is not possible as whenver the
program is changed it beings more bugs and play slower but never
faster. Looks like the wall has come where the program cannot be
further improved.

However below things may be improved Like

1. End Game
2. Think on Opponents Time
3. Use Dual/Core Quad Core power

Only thing that can increase its speed is to convert it into
downloadable version. Then may be it will be much faster.

I saw your game against easy levels. I find you take 60-70 moves to
win Easy Level. I think now Normal will play as good as you play and
Master Level will win against you. What do you think can you beat the
higher level or not?

Bye
Sanny

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

However below things may be improved Like

1. End Game
2. Think on Opponents Time
3. Use Dual/Core Quad Core power

To which I would add

4. Play by the rules of chess.