* Many years ago, a fellow came from out
of nowhere with achessprogram that was
stronger than all the others. *It had a nice
GUI, nicerchesspieces than the number
two program, and most curious of all, it fit
on a single floppy disk as it was quite
small in addition to searching faster.

Even GetClub Chess Program will fit in a floppy Disk

GetClub Chess Program Size is Just 200 KB. While a Floppy can take 1.2
MB. So you can pack 5 Chess Programs in a floppy.

The thing is that the size is small but the complexity is very high.

I think GetClub program is good enough for all Human Players. Only the
player using other commercial programs are beating the higher levels.

Only you are able to win the Master Level rest all are not going
higher than Normal Level.

Bye
Sanny

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

On May 10, 12:54 am, Sanny wrote:

Many years ago, a fellow came from out
of nowhere with achessprogram that was
stronger than all the others. It had a nice
GUI, nicerchesspieces than the number
two program, and most curious of all, it fit
on a single floppy disk as it was quite
small in addition to searching faster.

Even GetClub Chess Program will fit in a floppy Disk

GetClub Chess Program Size is Just 200 KB. While a Floppy can take 1.2
MB. So you can pack 5 Chess Programs in a floppy.

Ah, yes-- the single-sided, single density era is
long over. In fact, I think the entire 5.25" floppy
disk era is over. One day, my collection will be
worth a fortune, and I will then donate it to the
Smithsonian, along with my old 8-track tapes.


The thing is that the size is small but the complexity is very high.

I think GetClub program is good enough for all Human Players. Only the
player using other commercial programs are beating the higher levels.

Well, it is rumored that some kid called
"Nakamura" is now better than Roman D., who
himself was quite a computer-crusher in his
heyday. And if you recall, then-world champion
Kramnik was beating one of the world's top
chess programs... when he threw away the win,
and then overlooked a mate-in-one on himself!

Generally speaking, you might need to get up
to at least 2000 strength before declaring victory
over *all* humans.


Only you are able to win the Master Level rest all are not going
higher than Normal Level.

True. But then, nobody else can stand the
delay required to play the higher levels, so it is
not necessarily a case of being outclassed in
terms of strength.

One thing I have noticed is that when it comes
to attacking, your program is much too eager to
sacrifice material, and this makes it so that a
stubborn and patient defender can win without
much trouble. It is probably better to be a good
defender, and let the impatience of the human
animal work to destroy him.

Many years ago, I ran into a sort of "wall", a
rating line I could not get over. I decided to
play more aggressively, to /force/ my way to
victory against the lowly opponents I felt I was
superior to. This backfired, and I found myself
losing games I ought to have drawn. My rating
dropped, and this made me all the more
frustrated!

Then I decided to just stop making quite so
many stupid blunders, to force my despised
opponents to work hard for their wins or draws.
This worked much better, and I soon found that
in the course of many an even game, I needed
but one opportunity to seize the win, because
my technique was superior overall. I had no
"brilliancies", but I leaped ahead of those
other guys, into a new group of players. Now
my goal was to stop getting killed every time!
I began to nick them for draws, and eventually
became a real annoyance (deja vue)... .


-- help bot

On May 2, 10:56 pm, Sanny wrote:


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. [etc]

Sanny, instead of the score provide a link
to the game, so that I can replay it on the
screen by click-clicking. Otherwise forget it.

Wlod

On May 2, 10:56 pm, Sanny wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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}

Sanny, simply provide a link, so that
I will be able to replay the game on
the screen just by clicking on the moves.
Otherwise forget it.

Wlod

On May 10, 2:30 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:

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. [etc]

Sanny, instead of the score provide a link
to the game, so that I can replay it on the
screen by click-clicking. Otherwise forget it.


Someone has not been eating his Wheaties... .

Sanny includes *both* in his postings: a link for
those who are lazy bots like me, *plus* the game
score, for those who prefer to cut-and-paste into
their favorite GUI program. Trouble is, his score
is non-standard, so the cut-and-paste method
most likely won't work. Even so, there are a few
really strong players who don't need a graphical
board to "see" what is going on; these few, I have
heard (but would have no way of knowing, of
course) can replay the games in their minds, just
by looking at the score!

Unfortunately, this foresight on Sanny's part is
always overlooked, since there are no really
strong players here in rgc... (snicker).

Oh, and it is of course a simple matter to type
"http://www.getclub.com/" into your browser,
then scroll through just the last couple of games
played... click... click... hmmm, I think Zeb may
like Fritz 10, or maybe Shredder 7, or maybe it
is Chessmaster. Zeb's program is stronger than
the GetClub program, by far. But I think Rybka
can give it greater odds, because it is stronger
still.


-- help bot

Sanny, simply provide a link, so that
I will be able to replay the game on
the screen just by clicking on the moves.
Otherwise forget it.

* * Wlod

View Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM19903&game=Chess

I always give the link to Recorded game on top.

Bye
Sanny

Sanny wrote:
Many years ago, a fellow came from out
of nowhere with achessprogram that was
stronger than all the others. It had a nice
GUI, nicerchesspieces than the number
two program, and most curious of all, it fit
on a single floppy disk as it was quite
small in addition to searching faster.

Even GetClub Chess Program will fit in a floppy Disk

GetClub Chess Program Size is Just 200 KB. While a Floppy can take 1.2
MB. So you can pack 5 Chess Programs in a floppy.

The thing is that the size is small but the complexity is very high.

I think GetClub program is good enough for all Human Players. Only the
player using other commercial programs are beating the higher levels.

That seems very unlikely given that it is so predictable about
sacrificing N for 2P and going for spite checks. Its endgame play is
complete rubbish (but then even the top engines are still a little bit
flakey there at tournament time controls) I'd be surprised if it could
beat most serious club players reliably looking at the recent games.

I think it will now comfortably beat all casual chess players, but I
think anyone at ELO 2000+ will crush it (excluding careless slip ups).

Only you are able to win the Master Level rest all are not going
higher than Normal Level.

That is more because the humans die of boredom waiting for GetClub to
make a move at the higher levels. You would do well to find a couple of
local club level chess players with some mathematics or programming
background if you actually want to make the program stronger.

Playing toy matches and tweaking things isn't the right approach.

If you are serious you need to get a set of test cases that it should be
able to solve and regression test the engine against them after each
"improvement" - that way you can be sure you *are* making things better.

Some of the positions I have already picked out would be good ones to
have in your test suite.

A first step towards this is to allow the engine to accept FEN notation
for game positions and set up the board at the test position. Then a
modification so that you can display a table of move score in cp ranked
by evaluation as a function of search depth.

And underneath the time taken, number of nodes processed and terminal
nodes evaluated (this may require adding diagnostics to your code).

eg.
Ply: 1 2 3 4 5 6
e4 05
d4 03
c4 00
Nf3 -01
....
Nodes
Evals
Time
(this table should be sorted by the deepest evaluation available)

The objective is to try and get the ply 1 evaluation to be self
consistent with the deeper evaluations and so minimise the number of
nodes the program has to evaluate to get to a given depth.

The maximum depth examined by selective extensions is also possibly
useful here too. We need to see how it is thinking and what its internal
evaluation is for the moves to be able to give sensible advice.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Martin Brown writes:

Sanny wrote:

That game was played by EASY level. Heres a game by Advance Level
where Zebediah gave lots of sacrifices and win the game in just 34
moves.

In this game Zebediah was a knight ahead but later sacrificed its
knight to bring a quick end.

You mean that Getclub gifted him a knight and then played like a
patzer. This play is basically insane. There is something wrong with
either the evaluation function or the search algorithm.

I think the quiescence search is either not implemented at all or
somehow broken. Just for fun, I played a game between GetClub (running
on a 2.4GHz Core2 CPU) and my mobile phone (I think it has a 400MHz
ARM CPU). I expected my phone to be tactically outplayed, but the
exact opposite happened. Here is the game:

[White "GetClub beginner level 10-20s/move"]
[Black "Glofiish X800, 15s/move"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 Ne4 6. Bxe4 dxe4 7. e3 g5 8. Be5
O-O 9. g4 Nc6 10. Bg3 e5 11. d5 Ne7 12. Bxe5 Nxd5 13. Qe2 Re8 14. f4 exf3
15. Nxf3 Bxc3+ 16. bxc3 Bxg4 17. Bd4 c5 18. Bxc5 Nf4 19. Qf1 Qd5 20. Nxg5 Ng2+
21. Kf2 Qxc5 22. Kxg2 Qxg5 23. h4 Bf3+ 24. Kf2 Qxe3+ 25. Kg3 Bc6+ 26. Kh2 Qe5+
27. Kh3 Qe6+ 28. Kg3 Qd6+ 0-1

I guess that beginner level isn't intentionally making bad moves,
therefore my guess is a broken quiescence search.


Sanny writes:

6. e2-e4{104} Nf6-e4{1978}

And now the final coup de grace. Suicide chess anyone ???

No it gives 2 points for killing 2 Center pawns and other 1 point for
white King Comming out unprotected. and Look at White position its
none of the pieces is developed.

Why a whole point for the unprotected king? Wouldn't a smaller value,
like 0.25 be better?

Btw, is your evaluation function evaluating moves or positions?

--
Peter Osterlund -
http://web.telia.com/~u89404340

On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Sanny
wrote:

Yes, I will see if that can be corrected. It is very difficult to
modify the code as changing one line of code brings new Bugs and then
a week is wasted in correcting the Bugs.

That statement tells me quite at least 2 things:

1) There's a lot of copy and paste in your code (parts tend to look
alike, with minor modifications... some question as to whether making
a change is the right one).
2) You're probably not using the benefits of Java. Your display might
be OO, but I doubt that your chess analysis part did. What I know
about some contemporary chess engines (the company I work for built
the boards for Deep Blue) is that they evaluate each space.

You can score the piece count, but you also can score position...
Simplistically by how many squares are controlled. You only have 3
different kind of squares.
Also I have to agree with what someone else said. For testing
purposes, you really should work on handling position notation. One of
the beauties of chess is the state of the game can store in so few
bytes (64 and be comfortable). If you have a position that is, say, a
mate in 5, you can try that position against different versions (and
load it against different opponents as well).
Checks and draws should be some sort of function... I forget whether
you play a particular sound when the person is in check, but you can
use it for that, and also to put a '+' in the notation (or '#' for
checkmate).



Its like when we fly Kites. When the threads messup how difficult it
is to correct the jumbeled threads.

This Program is so large that if I have to read whole program line by
line, it will take me full day. So its very difficult to go through
all the codes and correct them.

200K isn't that large, even for a one-person project.




Bye
Sanny

1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 Ne4 6. Bxe4 dxe4 7. e3 g5 8. Be5
O-O 9. g4 Nc6 10. Bg3 e5 11. d5 Ne7 12. Bxe5 Nxd5 13. Qe2 Re8 14. f4 exf3
15. Nxf3 Bxc3+ 16. bxc3 Bxg4 17. Bd4 c5 18. Bxc5 Nf4 19. Qf1 Qd5 20. Nxg5 Ng2+
21. Kf2 Qxc5 22. Kxg2 Qxg5 23. h4 Bf3+ 24. Kf2 Qxe3+ 25. Kg3 Bc6+ 26. Kh2 Qe5+
27. Kh3 Qe6+ 28. Kg3 Qd6+ 0-1

I guess that beginner level isn't intentionally making bad moves,
therefore my guess is a broken quiescence search.

When dis you played this game. I could not find any game against
Beginner Level. Have you not yet completed the game. Or may be you
played a month/ week ago when it was having bugs.

Bye
Sanny

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