Perhaps your team should get achessplayer onboard and test it before you
release software. Better yet, build unit tests to test various functions in
the engine so that you KNOW before you release that your software at least
does the things you expect it to do under the test conditions. You will get a
lot less heat from the people in this group if you put a little QC around your
product.


Chess is a game which is always different and we can never know what
moves opponent will play in reply to computers move.

So we cannot test all the moves I think there are more moves possible
than all the dust particles in the World.

Bye
Sanny.

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

In rec.games.chess.computer Sanny wrote:

Chess is a game which is always different and we can never know what
moves opponent will play in reply to computers move.


Apparently you are not a software engineer then. You can test various
functions in the engine for expected results. Put in a position and run a
unit test to determine certain expected results in that position (i.e. certain
moves are always good). Yes, it is possible to put unit testing around that
chess engine ... you just need to put in the hooks and debug.

So we cannot test all the moves I think there are more moves possible
than all the dust particles in the World.


Nobody said anything about testing all moves. I said make some unit tests
that can stress various functions in your engine. Then at least, you will
know those functions are working as expected under certain test conditions.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

On Sep 11, 10:59 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Perhaps your team should get a chess player onboard

Maybe Sanny thinks *he is* a chess player?


and test it before you
release software. Better yet, build unit tests to test various functions in
the engine so that you KNOW before you release that your software at least
does the things you expect it to do under the test conditions. You will get a
lot less heat from the people in this group if you put a little QC around your
product.

Functions? Like say, a modular program in which
a move-generator passes a list to the next function,
which screens for legality and then passes off the
revised list (legal moves only) to an analysis function,
and on down the line? I don't think that is how
Sanny's program works.

My guess is that Sanny's program has a bunch
of patched-together code which incorporates a
multitude of Band-Aid style "fixes", and spits out a
move (legal or not) only after going through a series
of contortions and painful exercises, many of which
would "kill" any normal program the same way a
lemming is killed when he jumps off a cliff into the
sea. For Sanny, "testing" is where he goes back
after the game and meekly asks where the program
went wrong, so he can then type in another "fix" in
which the program will play some improvement by
rote from then on whenever it reaches the same
position, in exactly the same move order.

In short, the way to help him is by mailing him
cases of Band-Aids, glue, rubber bands and best
of all, duck tape.


-- hep bot

In short, the way to help him is by mailing him
cases of Band-Aids, glue, rubber bands and best
of all, duck tape.


One more Patch was found. Now I think it will play much better than
earlier. And a few bugs were removed I hope that will make it better.

Play a game and keep giving your valuable suggestions, So that all
problems are removed.

I feel now you will find the game quite better than earlier if not
report me the problem. As the games are recorded I can see the
recorded game.

Bye
Sanny

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

In rec.games.chess.computer help bot wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:59 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Perhaps your team should get a chess player onboard

Maybe Sanny thinks *he is* a chess player?


and test it before you
release software. Better yet, build unit tests to test various functions in
the engine so that you KNOW before you release that your software at least
does the things you expect it to do under the test conditions. You will get a
lot less heat from the people in this group if you put a little QC around your
product.

Functions? Like say, a modular program in which
a move-generator passes a list to the next function,
which screens for legality and then passes off the
revised list (legal moves only) to an analysis function,
and on down the line? I don't think that is how
Sanny's program works.

My guess is that Sanny's program has a bunch
of patched-together code which incorporates a
multitude of Band-Aid style "fixes", and spits out a
move (legal or not) only after going through a series
of contortions and painful exercises, many of which
would "kill" any normal program the same way a
lemming is killed when he jumps off a cliff into the
sea. For Sanny, "testing" is where he goes back
after the game and meekly asks where the program
went wrong, so he can then type in another "fix" in
which the program will play some improvement by
rote from then on whenever it reaches the same
position, in exactly the same move order.

In short, the way to help him is by mailing him
cases of Band-Aids, glue, rubber bands and best
of all, duck tape.


Agreed, it sounds like that. Never-the-less, a released program should have a
QA process and a QA process usually follows a unit testing process [or
incorporates one in batch].

If he doesn't take the suggestion, then perhaps he won't be pestering this
group much longer, but if he does, perhaps he will put out a better product.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

On Sep 12, 6:45 am, Sanny wrote:

I feel now you will find the game quite better than earlier if not
report me the problem. As the games are recorded I can see the
recorded game.

But the games do not seem to be recorded accurately, Sanny. Check,
for example, the last game by "Stinky Garlnoot." In the final position
shown, your program, playing White, is clearly busted, being down a
piece with no compensation, yet the game is recorded as a win for
White. Looks like your program just decided it didn't want to lose, so
it declared itself the winner and stopped the game.

But the games do not seem to be recorded accurately, Sanny. Check,
for example, the last game by "Stinky Garlnoot." In the final position
shown, your program, playing White, is clearly busted, being down a
piece with no compensation, yet the game is recorded as a win for
White. Looks like your program just decided it didn't want to lose, so
it declared itself the winner and stopped the game.

May be he pressed "Resign Now" Button by Mistake.

Bye
Sanny

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

PlayChessat:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Not untilGetClubstops cheating.

Can you give me any example of Cheating?

Bye
Sanny

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

Nobody said anything about testing all moves. I said make some unit tests
that can stress various functions in your engine. Then at least, you will
know those functions are working as expected under certain test conditions.


Now most of the Problems has been removed.

Here is how they play now.

Beginner Level: 1700
Easy Level: 1800
Normal Level: 1900
Master Level: 2000


Bye
Sanny

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

If he doesn't take the suggestion, then perhaps he won't be pestering this
group much longer, but if he does, perhaps he will put out a better product.

Yes, Test and play a game.

I am sure you will like its move. Here is how they play now.

Beginner Level: 1700
Easy Level: 1800
Normal Level: 1900
Master Level: 2000


Bye
Sanny

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