On Dec 6, 6:34 am, "help bot" wrote:

Worst of all, the thing is slow, slow, slow -- like a
snail.

I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's "engine." A better
analogy would be a glacier

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

Michael C wrote:
"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.

Either Michael C. has a newsreader that's quite
slow in updating or Michael C. is dishonest.

According to Google, Michael C. wrote his post
on 6 December 2006. On 5 December 2006,
Taylor Kingston wrote in this thread:

"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
improvements are baseless."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Evidently, Michael C. has little or no objection
to Sanny's spamming and his 'phony claims'.

"Michael C. seems unfamiliar with Sanny's history
on this group; I can't imagine why *he (Michael C.)
is so intent on defending* someone (Sanny) with
such a bad track record."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Taylor Kingston also has taken exception
to Michael C's posts in support of Sanny.

Would Michael C. now jump to the conclusion
that Taylor Kingston must know nothing about
computer programming?

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.

Again, Michael C. shows his extremely arrogant
presumption about me. Michael C. can know
nothing about the relations between me and the
computer science professors of my acquaintance.
But Michael C. has presumed to dismiss both my
knowledge and their considered judgments of it.

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.

What an understatement by Michael C.

"I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's
'engine'. A better analogy would be a glacier."
--Taylor Kingston (6 December 2006)

Evidently, Michael C. seems determined
to be an apologist for Sanny. All of
Michael C's name-calling at me cannot
improve the extremely negative facts
about Sanny's chess engine.

--Nick

Michael C wrote:
"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.

Please note that Michael C. has responded to
Taylor Kingston's post in general support of my
criticisms of Sanny's chess engine. That shows
that Michael C. has read Taylor Kingston's post
of 5 December 2006.

Please also note that on 6 December 2006
Michael C. wrote:
"I don't see anyone backing you (Nick) up here."
--Michael C. (6 December 2006)

I would have left the topic alone long ago if wasn't for Nick.

Michael C. seems to be attempting to change the subject
from his inappropriate, if not ludicrous, defence of Sanny to
his apparently self-perceived justified attacks against me.

For the record, I am far from the only writer who
has strongly criticised Sanny's chess engine.
I suspect that Michael C. would prefer to deny
the existence of those many other criticisms.

I originally said it wasn't that bad a chess engine

The complete evidence of what Michael C wrote
can be found in the Google archives, and it's better
to read that evidence directly rather than to accept
Michael C's tendentious interpretation(s) of it.

In fact, Michael C, who has boasted here of his
professional computer programming experience,
wrote this unjustified statement:

"The main critisism (sic) seems to be that his
(Sanny's) claimed time for the computer to make
a move are (sic) wrong. Because it's running on
the user's PC the times will be dependant (sic)
on the speed of the PC."
--Michael C.

Then David Richerby corrected Michael C.

"The problem is not that it's running on the user's PC.
The problem is that even people with cutting-edge
hardware are reporting that it regularly oversteps
the estimate by a factor of two or three...."
--David Richerby

I have much more respect for David Richerby's
computer programming knowledge than for
Michael C's, notwithstanding Michael C's boasting.

and that Nick was exaggerating, which he clearly is.

That's Michael C's 'proof by assertion'.

I have written that I have found Sanny's chess
engine to be the worst by far of any chess
engine that I have ever played.

Can Michael C., who tends to write extremely
arrogant false presumptions about me (Can
Michael C. read my mind?), prove that I have
played a chess engine worse than Sanny's?

While Sanny's chess engine might not be that great

"While Sanny's chess engine *might not be that great*"
--Michael C.

That's more evidence that Michael C's
a determined apologist for Sanny.

it is no where near as bad as Nick describes it.

Again, many diverse writers, who use many diverse
computers, have strongly criticised Sanny's chess
engine. Again, I suspect that Michael C. would
prefer--dishonestly--to act as though all of those
other experiences and criticisms did not exist.

--Nick

On Dec 6, 6:58 pm, "Nick" wrote:
Michael C wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
roups.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.

Either Michael C. has a newsreader that's quite
slow in updating or Michael C. is dishonest.

According to Google, Michael C. wrote his post
on 6 December 2006. On 5 December 2006,
Taylor Kingston wrote in this thread:

"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
improvements are baseless."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Evidently, Michael C. has little or no objection
to Sanny's spamming and his 'phony claims'.

"Michael C. seems unfamiliar with Sanny's history
on this group; I can't imagine why *he (Michael C.)
is so intent on defending* someone (Sanny) with
such a bad track record."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Taylor Kingston also has taken exception
to Michael C's posts in support of Sanny.

Would Michael C. now jump to the conclusion
that Taylor Kingston must know nothing about
computer programming?

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.

Again, Michael C. shows his extremely arrogant
presumption about me. Michael C. can know
nothing about the relations between me and the
computer science professors of my acquaintance.
But Michael C. has presumed to dismiss both my
knowledge and their considered judgments of it.

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.What an understatement by Michael C.

"I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's
'engine'. A better analogy would be a glacier."
--Taylor Kingston (6 December 2006)

As an example of its glacial slowness, I am currently playing Sanny's
program on its "10-seconds-per-move level." The game started at 2:00 PM
local time. I have taken a total of about 5 minutes for all my moves.
The game is now on about its 15th move, and it is 7:30 PM. You do the
math.

Evidently, Michael C. seems determined
to be an apologist for Sanny. All of
Michael C's name-calling at me cannot
improve the extremely negative facts
about Sanny's chess engine.

--Nick

Taylor Kingston wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
Michael C wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jester is a free online chess engine that's far stronger
and freer of bugs than Sanny's chess engine.

What is the URL, I'll have a look.*If* Michael C. has been reading the rec.games.chess.*
threads about Sanny's chess engine as *comprehensively*
as he seems to imply, then he *already* should have
been able to find the URL for Jester. In fact, I *already*
have mentioned that URL *several times* in threads about
Sanny's chess engine. As I can recall, David Richerby
(after I did) also has mentioned that URL.

So, evidently, Michael C. has *not* been reading
the RGC* threads about Sanny's chess engine as
completely as he might prefer other people to believe.

Again, the URL for Jester (by Stephane N.B. Nguyen) is:http://www.ludochess.com/jester_eng/jester_eng.html

May I suggest that Michael C. 'put his money
where his mouth is' and make a generous financial
donation to Sanny's chess engine project?

I don't think so, it's hardly going to be the next google.
Although I guess it would help you out a lot so you
could back up your claims that I am a sucker.If Michael C. were to invest in Sanny's chess
engine project, then it would convince me that
Michael C's sincere in expressing what he thinks.

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone else knows that
Sanny's chess engine has many major problems
(including extreme slowness and illegal moves)
that often, if not usually, make it practically
unplayable on some levels at least.

But Michael C. has claimed to have 'some good fun'
with Sanny's chess engine when many diverse writers
here have written that they have had to stop--in
disgust--from playing Sanny's chess engine.
So why has Michael C. *not* apparently noticed
the same problems (including extreme slowness
and illegal moves) that many other diverse writers
have complained strongly about?

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone else knows that
Sanny routinely makes outrageously false claims
about his chess engine.

But, as far as I can tell, Michael C. apparently
believes that Sanny's no worse than a slightly
misguided software developer with an undeserved
public relations problem. Does Michael C.
prefer to believe that Sanny's claims are true
or prefer to believe that there's nothing much
wrong with Sanny reiterating his lies?

Sanny's chess engine might impress a weak player.

I'm no grand master but am on the 74th percentile at gameknot
without taking it too seriously (i've let some friend's win games
on occassion and often make moves without thinking it out at all).Is that supposed to impress me?

I know nothing about the quality of players at GameKnot.
Does Michael C. have a FIDE or USCF rating?
Or an ICC or Playchess rating?

That sounds like someone claiming that he's
'pretty good' at golf except for his putting.

Chess is won, lost, or drawn as a complete game.
It's easy enough for a weak player to claim that a few
of his or her moves are 'pretty good', but that does *not*
mean that his or her game as a whole was 'pretty good'.

That is true but it does seem to have a pretty
strong middle game even on begginer.Sanny's chess engine has ignored my mate-in-one
threats in more than one game.

That means he is at least getting there.As far as I can tell from the comments of
Taylor Kingston (USCF 1811 OTB), who has
played many games against it, Sanny's chess
engine's still far from improving to the point where it
could make a serious challenge to Taylor Kingston.

How long has it been since you've played it?

I don't have that much time to waste on an
extremely weak and buggy chess engine.

So basically the answer is no. It is much easier if you just said
"no I have not played it recently therefore have no idea what I'm
talking about".That's more arrogant nonsense by Michael C.

I am qualified enough to assess a chess engine's
strength by examining other players' games
without necessarily having to play it myself.

I have not played Sanny's chess engine recently,
but I have looked at some of the recent games
by other players against it. As far as I can tell,
for instance, Taylor Kingston (USCF 1811 OTB)
still believes that Sanny's chess engine's very
weak, slow, and/or buggy.

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.

Thanks to Taylor Kingston for confirming that I have
accurately represented his very negative judgement
of Sanny's chess engine. Evidently, Taylor Kingston
and I generally concur about Sanny's chess engine.

For some reason, Michael C. has seemed intent on
misrepresenting me as the only writer here who has
formed a very negative judgement of Sanny's chess
engine. Will Michael C. now jump to the conclusion
that Taylor Kingston must know nothing about
computer programming?

Michael C seems unfamiliar with
Sanny's history on this group;

But Michael C. has been acting as though he
were thoroughly familiar with the past threads
about Sanny's chess engine. Indeed, Michael C.
has been apparently claiming that most, if not all,
other writers in rec.games.chess.* would agree with
his rather positive view of Sanny's chess engine
rather than with my very negative view of it.

I can't imagine why he is so intent on defending
someone with such a bad track record.

At first, I thought that Michael C was just ignorant
and stupid. Now, based on the evidence of his
posts, I have begun to think that Michael C's
also another abusive dishonest troll.

Michael C. has claimed to have had 'some good fun'
with Sanny's chess engine, and Michael C. has
not reported any serious problems with using it.

In contrast to Michael C's claimed experience,
many diverse writers here have complained
strongly that they cannot enjoy playing Sanny's
chess engine on account of its extreme slowness,
many bugs, and/or its habit of making illegal moves.

Somehow Michael C. seems oblivious to these
commonly reported problems, and so he seems
to have had an about uniquely happy experience
with Sanny's chess engine. Perhaps Sanny should
hire Michael C. as his public relations agent. :-)

--Nick

Does Michael C. believe, as he seems to
indicate (above), that I *must* have recent
personal experience of something in order
to know that it's bad?

An acquaintance of mine died of AIDS.
I know that having AIDS is bad.
I don't have AIDS, and I don't have to
have AIDS in order to know that it's bad.

But I suppose that Michael C. would--by
analogy to his nonsense (above)--say
something like, 'Nick has said that he
does not have AIDS, so therefore he
can have no idea that AIDS is bad'.

--Nick

Taylor Kingston wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
Michael C wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
roups.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.

Either Michael C. has a newsreader that's quite
slow in updating or Michael C. is dishonest.

According to Google, Michael C. wrote his post
on 6 December 2006. On 5 December 2006,
Taylor Kingston wrote in this thread:

"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
improvements are baseless."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Evidently, Michael C. has little or no objection
to Sanny's spamming and his 'phony claims'.

"Michael C. seems unfamiliar with Sanny's history
on this group; I can't imagine why *he (Michael C.)
is so intent on defending* someone (Sanny) with
such a bad track record."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Taylor Kingston also has taken exception
to Michael C's posts in support of Sanny.

Would Michael C. now jump to the conclusion
that Taylor Kingston must know nothing about
computer programming?

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.

Again, Michael C. shows his extremely arrogant
presumption about me. Michael C. can know
nothing about the relations between me and the
computer science professors of my acquaintance.
But Michael C. has presumed to dismiss both my
knowledge and their considered judgments of it.

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.

What an understatement by Michael C.

"I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's
'engine'. A better analogy would be a glacier."
--Taylor Kingston (6 December 2006)

As an example of its glacial slowness, I am currently playing Sanny's
program on its "10-seconds-per-move level." The game started at 2:00 PM
local time. I have taken a total of about 5 minutes for all my moves.
The game is now on about its 15th move, and it is 7:30 PM.
You do the math.

Ah, but Michael C likes to act as though he must
understand far better than Taylor Kingston and I
about the merits of Sanny's chess engine.

"The speed is a bit of an issue"
--Michael C.

"While Sanny's engine might not be that great"
--Michael C.

I would submit that Michael C. has shown
that he's a determined apologist for Sanny.

--Nick

Evidently, Michael C. seems determined
to be an apologist for Sanny. All of
Michael C's name-calling at me cannot
improve the extremely negative facts
about Sanny's chess engine.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Either Michael C. has a newsreader that's quite
slow in updating or Michael C. is dishonest.

According to Google, Michael C. wrote his post
on 6 December 2006. On 5 December 2006,
Taylor Kingston wrote in this thread:

Wow fruitcake, you've got one supporter who also called you a troll.

Again, Michael C. shows his extremely arrogant
presumption about me. Michael C. can know
nothing about the relations between me and the
computer science professors of my acquaintance.
But Michael C. has presumed to dismiss both my
knowledge and their considered judgments of it.

That was my point fruitcake. What you said proved absolutely nothing about
your knowledge of computers or chess. It would be very easy to write a very
poor chess engine at university and have everyone believe you are the expert
because you are the only person doing it.

What an understatement by Michael C.

"I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's
'engine'. A better analogy would be a glacier."
--Taylor Kingston (6 December 2006)

My statement is fairly reasonable. If sanny's chess engine was revieved by
an intelligent author this is what they would write. They would not write
over exaggerated childish drivel such as you have done.

Michael

Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
Michael C wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
roups.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.

Either Michael C. has a newsreader that's quite
slow in updating or Michael C. is dishonest.

According to Google, Michael C. wrote his post
on 6 December 2006. On 5 December 2006,
Taylor Kingston wrote in this thread:

"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
improvements are baseless."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Evidently, Michael C. has little or no objection
to Sanny's spamming and his 'phony claims'.

"Michael C. seems unfamiliar with Sanny's history
on this group; I can't imagine why *he (Michael C.)
is so intent on defending* someone (Sanny) with
such a bad track record."
--Taylor Kingston (5 December 2006)

Taylor Kingston also has taken exception
to Michael C's posts in support of Sanny.

Would Michael C. now jump to the conclusion
that Taylor Kingston must know nothing about
computer programming?

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.

Again, Michael C. shows his extremely arrogant
presumption about me. Michael C. can know
nothing about the relations between me and the
computer science professors of my acquaintance.
But Michael C. has presumed to dismiss both my
knowledge and their considered judgments of it.

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.

What an understatement by Michael C.

"I have seen many snails faster than Sanny's
'engine'. A better analogy would be a glacier."
--Taylor Kingston (6 December 2006)

As an example of its glacial slowness, I am currently playing Sanny's
program on its "10-seconds-per-move level." The game started at 2:00 PM
local time. I have taken a total of about 5 minutes for all my moves.
The game is now on about its 15th move, and it is 7:30 PM.
You do the math.

Michael C. has written that he has had
'some good fun' with Sanny's chess engine.
Evidently, Michael C. regards its 'bit of an issue'
about speed as no worse than an inconvenience.

So why cannot Taylor Kingston and other players
enjoy Sanny's vaunted chess engine as much as
Michael C. claims that he has done?

--Nick

Ah, but Michael C likes to act as though he must
understand far better than Taylor Kingston and I
about the merits of Sanny's chess engine.

"The speed is a bit of an issue"
--Michael C.

"While Sanny's engine might not be that great"
--Michael C.

I would submit that Michael C. has shown
that he's a determined apologist for Sanny.

--Nick

Evidently, Michael C. seems determined
to be an apologist for Sanny. All of
Michael C's name-calling at me cannot
improve the extremely negative facts
about Sanny's chess engine.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Please note that Michael C. has responded to
Taylor Kingston's post in general support of my
criticisms of Sanny's chess engine. That shows
that Michael C. has read Taylor Kingston's post
of 5 December 2006.

Please also note that on 6 December 2006
Michael C. wrote:
"I don't see anyone backing you (Nick) up here."
--Michael C. (6 December 2006)

Did you check the times fruitcake? I really can't be bothered but I believe
I posted before reading Nicks post.

Michael C. seems to be attempting to change the subject
from his inappropriate, if not ludicrous, defence of Sanny to
his apparently self-perceived justified attacks against me.

Not only are you a fruitcake but a paranoid one at that.

The complete evidence of what Michael C wrote
can be found in the Google archives, and it's better
to read that evidence directly rather than to accept
Michael C's tendentious interpretation(s) of it.

In fact, Michael C, who has boasted here of his
professional computer programming experience,
wrote this unjustified statement:

"The main critisism (sic) seems to be that his
(Sanny's) claimed time for the computer to make
a move are (sic) wrong. Because it's running on
the user's PC the times will be dependant (sic)
on the speed of the PC."
--Michael C.

Please keep on about my spelling, I *love* it when people do that. It's
practically I sign of defeat (and makes you look pretty pedantic).

Now, read my statement, it is 100% correct. The engine runs on the user's
machine, not a web server and will be dependant on the speed of their
machine. For someone who is meant to have written a chess engine you know
pretty much **** all about computers.

"The problem is not that it's running on the user's PC.
The problem is that even people with cutting-edge
hardware are reporting that it regularly oversteps
the estimate by a factor of two or three...."
--David Richerby

I never said it took the time claimed. In fact I said it didn't and that
sanny should be more honest about the time it takes. What didn't you
understand about that?

Can Michael C., who tends to write extremely
arrogant false presumptions about me (Can
Michael C. read my mind?), prove that I have
played a chess engine worse than Sanny's?

If I was prepared to invest the amount of time you have in this thread I
would go back and read all the posts and quote the person who said you
obviously haven't played many chess engines.

Again, many diverse writers, who use many diverse
computers, have strongly criticised Sanny's chess
engine. Again, I suspect that Michael C. would
prefer--dishonestly--to act as though all of those
other experiences and criticisms did not exist.

This is a newgroup and one thing is for sure that many people will
exaggerate. My point was just that, nothing more. I never said it was a
great chess engine or that I would invest in it or that it was fast. They
were things you just plain invented. It seems to me that unless someone is
totally bagging sanny you are not happy. I do enjoy watching you get upset
though so please do keep going.


--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
ps.com...
Ah, but Michael C likes to act as though he must
understand far better than Taylor Kingston and I
about the merits of Sanny's chess engine.

"The speed is a bit of an issue"
--Michael C.

"While Sanny's engine might not be that great"
--Michael C.

I would submit that Michael C. has shown
that he's a determined apologist for Sanny.

Mate you are a determined fruitcake. These statements of mine are quite
reasonable and balanced.

Michael