I had a some good fun with his chess engine for free.

I suppose that an ignorant player could have 'some good
fun' with an extremely weak chess engine that moves
extremely slowly and often makes illegal moves.


Please do not annoy Players who like Playing at:
http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

You do not like the game play (That is wrong if you have played a game
recently), But why are you stopping others to play games at GetClub.com

Bye
Sanny

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

Sanny wrote:
Nick wrote:
If Michael C. admires Sanny, then why does
Michael C. decline to give his financial
support to Sanny's chess engine project?

I never Asked Michael C to give me money.

Again, Sanny's being disingenuous.
The evidence's in the Google archives.

I did *not* write that Sanny has asked Michael C.
*in particular* to send money to him. But Sanny
has written a public appeal in rec.games.chess.*
for people to send money to him.

On 30 October 2006, Sanny created (and named)
the rec.games.chess.analysis thread,
'GetClub Game Development Stopped due to Money'.

Sanny could hardly have made his complaint
more explicit--'GetClub Game Development
*Stopped due to Money*'.

Here's what Sanny wrote:

"Now, I am feeling uncertain about the GetClub Game
Development. It is taking a lot of money. While
the response of the players was not so good as
predicted 6 months back. ... Now, we will not
invest our Time and Money in Developing this
Chess Game further. As we are not getting back
what we are investing. We are loosing (sic) our
Fresh Money that we earned by hard work.

However if any of the Rich Player want the Game
to Progress and play good enough, their support
is appriciated (sic).

We are looking for support from the Players.
*You just need to buy Games from the site.*
....
If you want further Improvements in GetClub Chess
Game, *buy our Games* that will help us improve
this game. ..."
--Sanny (30 October 2006)

In that post, Sanny posted two links (which
I have snipped) to his webpage in which people
could use their credit cards to pay Sanny.

Michael C., do you understand that?

I have lots of other sources of income.

Then why did Sanny create the recent thread,
'GetClub Game Development Stopped due to
Money' and beg the readers here, in effect,
to send money to him?

Chess was developed not for money but as a side project.

Oh, that explains (sarcasm intended) why Sanny
has posted links to his webpage asking people
to send money to him.

Well we want atleast to get back the money we invested in it.
But even that is not comming as everyone is looking for getting
everything for FREE.

Sanny's chess engine is worthless.
Sanny's claims also tend to be worthless.

--Nick

I have lots of other sources of income.

Then why did Sanny create the recent thread,
'GetClub Game Development Stopped due to
Money' and beg the readers here, in effect,
to send money to him?


Anything you develop needs money and Time and if are getting no returns
naturally your attraction towards that project ends. But Chess being a
nice game I continued it's development despite not getting the returns.

I was asking them to purchase (100 games for $10.) (Not begging anyone
to get money)

The Working Chess Program which is playing all legal moves has been
made.
Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

This was the mission of our Chess Program when we started buiding it.

But if you are looking for it to beat GM Level players a lot more work
has to be done and that will be done only if we get lot of returns. As
for that we have to hire big chess players and expert programmers whose
fees will be a lot higher.

Now we have stopped developing the Game further till we get enough
returns to start further development.

Bye
Sanny

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

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does Michael C. believe that therefore the extreme lack
of quality in Sanny's chess engine does not matter?

Have you played it lately? (No need to answer, you already said you
haven't).

Michael C. keeps finding ways to mispell 'criticism'.
....
Look at his absence of subject-verb agreement.
....
'Grammer' is misspelled.
....
It creates a poor professional impression to submit
notes that are full of spelling and grammatical errors.

Mate, you are a friggin fruit cake. Seriously, all this referring to me in
the third person and correctly my speeeling is freaking me out a bit. I
guess if you're going to get weirdo trolls they're going to be on a chess
group.

I suppose that an ignorant player could have 'some good
fun' with an extremely weak chess engine that moves
extremely slowly and often makes illegal moves.

1) I am no master but I'm certainly not an ignorant player.
2) It didn't make any illegal moves that I noticed.
3) It didn't seem that weak to me considering I was playing on beginner.

Michael C. has been praising (comparatively speaking)
Sanny's chess engine. I had supposed that Michael C.
sincerely believes Sanny's chess engine is good.
If Michael C. does not believe that, then it raises
the question of why he has been apparently praising
Sanny's chess engine.

You really are an odd one. I really can't be bothered correcting you here
but you are twisting my words big time.

Michael

"Nick" wrote in message
s.com...
So what? Does Michael C. believe that
because he finds Sanny's chess engine
to be a quite challenging opponent that
therefore I must also find it to be a quite
challenging opponent?

Twisting words again.

For the record, many diverse writers have
posted their games in which they have
easily defeated Sanny's chess engine.

There's one thing I've learnt about newsgroups over the years and that it
that it's full of egos. Only those who gave his engine a hiding would post
their games here. All those that even had a good run for their money would
keep quiet. This gives the impression that no-one loses to it or even that
no-one comes close.

I have to object to 'con artists', such as Sanny,
reiterating lies for the sake of commercial gain.
As far as I can tell, Michael C. believes there's
very little wrong, at worst, with such behaviour
by Sanny or other people.

Con artists don't spend months or years writing chess engines to get $5 out
of people.

If Michael C. admires Sanny, then why does
Michael C. decline to give his financial
support to Sanny's chess engine project?

Seriously Nick you must be thick. I've explained this already but you keep
repeating this over and over.

Michael

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Based on what I have been reading for many months of
posts in rec.games.chess.*, I would say that Michael C.
has misrepresented the views of 'most' writers in rgc*.

I don't see anyone backing you up here.

Michael C's presumption about my alleged
incomprehension is absolutely wrong.

Although I have not kept up with recent developments
in this field, I once was considered (by professors
in the computer science department) to have been
the most knowledgeable person about computer
chess programming at my university.

That is funny. After programming for 23 years (12 professionally) I've
realised it very easy to impress people when you could potentially have very
little knowledge.

While he still was a university student, a friend of mine
(who's an average club player) wrote a chess engine.
His chess engine did not play very well, but
it *always* made legal moves and it *always*
moved within the specified time limits--which
Sanny's chess engine has failed to achieve.

The speed is a bit of an issue I agree.

Michael

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
Quite so. I agree with most of what Nick has posted on this subject
recently. Sanny's program appears to be a hopeless case. His continual
spamming about its strength is annoying, and his phony claims of major
improvement are baseless.
Michael C seems unfamiliar with Sanny's history on this group; I
can't imagine why he is so intent on defending someone with such a bad
track record.

I would have left the topic alone long ago if wasn't for Nick. I originally
said it wasn't that bad a chess engine and that Nick was exaggerating, which
he clearly is. While Sanny's chess engine might not be that great it is no
where near as bad as Nick describes it.

Michael

Michael C wrote:

Michael C. keeps finding ways to mispell 'criticism'.
...
Look at his absence of subject-verb agreement.
...
'Grammer' is misspelled.
...
It creates a poor professional impression to submit
notes that are full of spelling and grammatical errors.

Mate, you are a friggin fruit cake. Seriously, all this referring to me in
the third person and correctly my speeeling is freaking me out a bit. I
guess if you're going to get weirdo trolls they're going to be on a chess
group.


IMO, Nick Bourbaki is way out in left field. He is
constantly whining about somebody "trolling" him,
as if he were a lake. In addition, he always claims
to have the invisible support of numerous allies --
none of which ever manage to speak for themselves
here. He has written as though he were, just like
Phil Innes, some sort of unknown -- yet great -- chess
player. Lately, he has taken to beating up on
Sanny, and although he makes some good points
regarding the latter's silly claims of dramatic
improvements to his chess program, Mr. Bourbaki
lacks perspective. For instance, it is true that
chess is just a sideline project at GetClub, as any
sensible person can verify by visiting the site and
noting that other games are also in this basket.
The primary focus seemed to be selling business
software, and I expect that Sanny's programmers
are fed up with the incessant demands for better
and faster chess. As I have noted several times
before, chess requires specialized knowledge,
not merely routine, common-sense programming.
They don't have it, and from all appearances,
aren't likely to get it any time soon. :D

In my view, Sanny was most likely delivering an
*insult* when he wrote that Nick Bourbaki was a
weak player, yet the inevitable result was a claim
of "lying"; yet how can Sanny "lie" about Mr.
Bourbaki's strength, when he is obviously quite
clueless? As has been written to me in a similar
situation: why attribute to malice, that which can
easily be explained by mere incompetence?

I got a good laugh out of "Michael" refering to
Nick Bourbaki as trolling him. As GM Fischer put
it: what goes around, comes around! Well, that's
all the kritisizumz I have for today.

-- help bot

Michael C wrote:

I would have left the topic alone long ago if wasn't for Nick. I originally
said it wasn't that bad a chess engine and that Nick was exaggerating, which
he clearly is. While Sanny's chess engine might not be that great it is no
where near as bad as Nick describes it.


These guys are comparing Sanny's program to the
widely-available commercial chess programs, which
of course are much, much stronger and are not
plagued by quirks such as not recognising draws, for
example. They also like to mention Jester, because
it too, is free, and it also runs using the Java applet,
but with no apparent problems.

Personally, I think that is apples to oranges, since
Sanny's team has clearly demonstrated that they
deserve amatuer status. Make that beginner status.
At best. ;D

I just (barely) finished a game on one of the fastest
levels, in which Sanny's program hung a piece in the
opening (yes, again). It put up a half-decent defense,
but the piece-hang quite simply decided the issue well
before move ten. Once again, tactics are a sore spot,
and I don't mean tricky tactics, like when you sac a
bunch of material for an unstoppable mating attack.
I mean simply forking two pieces and then taking one
of them. The program just can't calculate elementary
tactics consistently.

I have a general feeling that contrary to what Sanny
is currently claiming, his program actually played
much stronger chess a while back. That is to say,
after Taylor Kingston's romp to the top, but before
all the more recent tinkering. Look at the program's
ratings now: 600? This shows that a lot of games
are going to the human players, and precious few to
the program, no matter which level.

Worst of all, the thing is slow, slow, slow -- like a
snail. If it weren't for this single issue, I would most
likely have already beaten it hundreds of times, like
an egg in a blender.

-- chef bot

I have a general feeling that contrary to what Sanny
is currently claiming, his program actually played
much stronger chess a while back.

This game was weaken by fork. Otherwise you would have faced real game.
I have played many games with Beginner Level and is amazed at moves it
is making. I feel you should try Easy Level It may beat you in 1/3
Games.

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

With the game improved I feel soon I will see lots of Games being won
by Computer and the Ratings of each level will again rise to higher
levels.

Beginner will come at: 1400

Easy will go at: 1600

Normal will go at: 1800

Bye
Sanny

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