Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 12:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,365
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
improvement done.

Can you spot mistakes in this game by GetClub?

Game Played between Rybka and easy at GetClub.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka: (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...853&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(Rybka) -- (easy)

1. d2-d4{16} Ng8-f6{0}
2. c2-c4{8} e7-e6{0}
3. Ng1-f3{12} Nf6-e4{20}
4. Qd1-d3{16} d7-d5{22}
5. c4-d5{10} e6-d5{30}
6. Nb1-d2{44} Bf8-b4{62}
7. a2-a3{16} Bb4-d2{40}
8. Nf3-d2{12} f7-f5{24}
9. Nd2-e4{14} f5-e4{20}
10. Qd3-g3{12} Ke8-g8{24}
11. Bc1-f4{14} Nb8-c6{48}
12. Bf4-c7{18} Qd8-f6{42}
13. e2-e3{16} Bc8-g4{96}
14. Bf1-b5{32} Ra8-c8{44}
15. Bc7-d6{12} Rf8-f7{118}
16. Ke1-g1{12} Qf6-f5{46}
17. h2-h3{14} Bg4-h5{24}
18. Ra1-c1{20} Bh5-g6{96}
19. Rc1-c5{22} h7-h6{66}
20. Rf1-c1{14} Bg6-h7{112}
21. Bb5-c4{18} Nc6-d4{24}
22. e3-d4{32} Rc8-c5{22}
23. Bd6-c5{14} Kg8-h8{62}
24. Bc4-e2{36} a7-a6{40}
25. Bc5-d6{16} b7-b6{88}
26. Be2-a6{16} Rf7-f6{296}
27. Rc1-c7{16} Rf6-g6{222}
28. Qg3-e5{16} Qf5-g5{96}
29. Qe5-g5{508} Rg6-g5{26}
30. Bd6-e7{14} Rg5-g6{20}
31. Ba6-e2{28} Bh7-g8{26}
32. Be2-h5{14} Rg6-e6{20}
33. Be7-f8{12} Kh8-h7{42}
34. Rc7-g7{36} Kh7-h8{0}
35. Rg7-c7{16} Bg8-h7{26}
36. Bf8-g7{14} Kh8-g8{0}
37. Bh5-f7{10} Kg8-g7{0}
38. Bf7-e6{12} Kg7-f6{42}
39. Rc7-h7{14} Kf6-e6{28}
40. Rh7-h6{12} Ke6-d7{92}
41. Rh6-b6{16} Kd7-c7{76}
42. a3-a4{44} Kc7-b6{64}
43. b2-b4{14} Kb6-c6{142}
44. h3-h4{12} Kc6-d7{322}
45. h4-h5{14} Kd7-e7{62}
46. a4-a5{12} Ke7-f6{144}
47. Kg1-f1{36} Kf6-f7{20}
48. a5-a6{298} Kf7-e6{0}
49. h5-h6{140} Ke6-d7{94}
50. h6-h7{122} Kd7-c6{106}
51. Kf1-e2{20} Kc6-b6{104}
52. Ke2-e3{26} Kb6-a6{28}
53. Ke3-f4{18} e4-e3{86}
54. f2-e3{186} Ka6-b6{96}
55. Kf4-e5{60} Kb6-c6{146}
56. b4-b5{86} Kc6-b7{130}
57. Ke5-d5{20} Kb7-b6{84}
58. Qh7-h8{Q}{18} Kb6-b5{52}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka: (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...853&game=Chess

So what do you say how good Easy Level played against Rybka?

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 02:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 194
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

Sanny wrote:
Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
improvement done.

Can you spot mistakes in this game by GetClub?


Plenty of huge mistakes e.g.
- 11...Nc6 just obviously gives up a pawn for nothing
- 18...Bg6 worsens the position of a piece while also giving up further
material
- 20...Bh7 is just idiotic - that Bh5-g6-h7 maneuver doesn't gain
anything while in the meantime white wins a piece
- 25...b6 just gives away another pawn for no reason.

Why do you call this a strong game?

Rybka is just mopping up after move 16, okay, while Rybka is objectively
winning from then onwards, it is reasonably to try to see whether there
is some hope of swindling a draw. However by move 30 Rybka is so
obviously winning, that I think we see one major lack in the GetClub
program: It does not know when to resign.

If the computer would resign in hopeless positions like this, that would
be a great new feature (but just to clarify, which seems necessary given
your past track record: the rules of chess all GetClub to resign, but it
does not allow the computer to decide that its opponent is resigning...)
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 03:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 219
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

"Sanny" wrote in message
...
Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
improvement done.


Why do you keep saying that GetClub is *twice stronger*?

ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
elo by now.

Length of the game.... A couple moves longe rmakes the program 'twice
stronger'? Quite possibly. You have mentioned things like that before.

Let me quote you something that International Master Charles Kalme once said
about a chess program that he used to be involved in....

Quote***

.... the machine was never really in the game and had no viable plan beyond
the defense it was forced into. It is easy to make the best moves, in the
sense of losing more slowly, if these entail meeting immediate tactical
threats.

End Quote***

In other words, the program had no idea what to do to win. All it knew how
to do was lose more slowly when forced into it.

Admittedly, the chess program he was involved with was pathetic. Inovative,
but pathetic even by the standards of the time. But the priciple remains.
He is clearly pointing out there is a difference in knowing how to win and
just being able to loose more slowly when forced into it.


If you want people to take you seriously, you better start providing some
testing results to back it up.

Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
positions are standard testing positions from human games.

That at least is a reasonaly simple thing you can do to prove to the world
your program is actually improving.

And heck, if your program is actually decent, wouldn't you *WANT* to brag
about how well your program does on standard chess positions?






----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 11:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 625
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

* Guest (16:26) schrieb:

Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
positions are standard testing positions from human games.


I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface that
doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.

Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
application.

mfg, simon .... l
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 11:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 219
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!


"Simon Krahnke" wrote in message
...
* Guest (16:26) schrieb:

Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
positions are standard testing positions from human games.


I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface that
doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.


I think it's likely that he has a private interface that doesn't get
compiled into the public version.

To set up positions, run test scripts, etc.

Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.

I've never looked at it, but it might actually still be there in the public
version. You just need to do something special to activate it.


It's odd that even the public version can't set up positions though. Surely
even normal chess players would want to set up a tough position and study it
with such a STRONG program....


Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
application.


Just to keep Sanny happy, try to do it without actually modifying his
program.

Do it by injecting commands etc. directly into the inner part of his
program.

Or maybe by intercepting the network I/O it does. Does it load games from
the server? If so, intercept that and inject your own positions.

Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.






----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 02:49 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 625
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

* Guest (00:45) schrieb:

Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.


Guess why he keeps asking for errors and such and just presents lost
games? That's the only testing there is.

I've never looked at it, but it might actually still be there in the public
version. You just need to do something special to activate it.


Been at least a year since I took a look at his site.

Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
application.


Just to keep Sanny happy, try to do it without actually modifying his
program.


Of course. I would leave the jar intact and add an additional jar that
calls into the original code.

LOL, I took at look at it now: No jar file, one big class file!

Or maybe by intercepting the network I/O it does. Does it load games from
the server? If so, intercept that and inject your own positions.


Yeah, that's an interesting way too.

Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.


He can try to sue me. :-)

mfg, simon .... l
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 06:51 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,365
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.


He can try to sue me. :-)


Only those who do wrong may afraid. The GetClub game is only for
playing no hacking/ other activities.

If you do any of them then I think you are intelligent enough to know
the consequences.

Bye
Sanny


  #8   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 06:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,365
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
improvement done.


Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?

ELO ratings? *Not bloody likely. *At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
elo by now.


According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
increases by +50.

So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.

Here is recent ratings for GetClub Chess.

Baby: 2000+ (2 sec / move)
Beginner: 2100+ (15 sec / move)
Easy: 2200+ (1 min / move)
Normal: 2300+ (4 min / move)
Master 2400+ (20 min / move)

Higher levels are not worth playing as they take lot of time. But
Beginner & Easy give good challenge to all.

Bye
Sanny

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




  #9   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 06:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

On Aug 16, 10:56*pm, Sanny wrote:
Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
improvement done.


Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?


ELO ratings? *Not bloody likely. *At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
elo by now.


According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
increases by +50.

So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.

Here is recent ratings for GetClub Chess.

Baby: 2000+ (2 sec / move)
Beginner: 2100+ (15 sec / move)
Easy: 2200+ (1 min / move)
Normal: 2300+ (4 min / move)
Master 2400+ (20 min / move)

Higher levels are not worth playing as they take lot of time. But
Beginner & Easy give good challenge to all.

Bye
Sanny

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


These ratings are probably off by about 500-700 points. Just so you
know....

One other thing that you should understand is that REAL ratings are
also based on a time control. Example: if a player is rated 2000 at
tournament time controls (40 moves in 2 hours), and another player
needs 2 hours to find the same move that the 2000-rated player can
find in 2 minutes, then the slower player is NOT rated 2000, but
significantly lower.

Sanny, this is why your ratings are completely wrong.

jm


jm
  #10   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 07:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 219
Default GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!

"Sanny" wrote in message
...

? Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
? improvement done.
?
? Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?
?
? ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
? elo by now.

According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
increases by +50.


"Twice stronger" in what way?

Do you really not understand just how vague that is??


So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.


Based on *ONE* program's estimated ratings??

That's not valid.

You need a lot more opponents than that to get a valid rating.

And you need a lot more games to get that rating, too. Hundreds of games
are needed to get anything close to a reliable indicator of a change in
strength like that.


It is mathematically impossible to get even a semi-accurate rating if you
only do it against one opponent.

It just simply does not work that way.



And what little you are doing, you aren't even doing right. You aren't
doing it time based. You give GC 5 or 10 times longer than Rybka, while
forcing Rybka to run at such absurdly reduced time limit that it can't even
play as well it should.



This is *NOT* about your program. This is about *your* refusal to do
accepted methods to get to a reliable rating estimate for your program.
People have been telling you this dozens or hundreds of times, and you are
still refusing to do things the right way.

And your refusal to even do standard test positions. Which wont give a good
rating estimate, but it would allow people to look at the results and
objectively judge the program's abilities in those types of situations.

I don't know how strong your program is, and I honestly don't care one way
or the other. This is all about your flat out refusal to even attempt to do
any sort of reliable testing to get those ratings you brag about.


It's a joke Sanny. People are laughing at you behind your back. Heck, some
are even doing it to your face.

If you want people to believe your ratings estimates, you must follow
accepted methods to get those ratings.

Until you do, you are the circus clown everybody is laughing at.

The poor country boy on his first trip to the Big City, who's trying to look
fancy and sophisticated while walking out of the lavatory with paper stuck
to his shoe.

The sucker that some pretty girl brought to a party so that everybody else
could laugh at.



I understand that doing reliable ratings tests are hard and time consuming.
Even doing automated tests on some internet chess server could be hard
because of how your GC is programmed. That's why I even gave you a way to
'cheat' and report some standard test positions. You could do those tests
in an evening and then compare those results to what other programs can give
at the *SAME* time controls.

That wouldn't be the same as a rating, but it would allow comparison of your
program to others that do have known strengths etc.

It would be something solid, rather than your ratings that you pick out of a
hat.







----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We Are Your All GetClub All The Time Newsgroup!!! GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub! The tired of GetClub club rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 18 February 28th 08 07:24 PM
We Are Your All GetClub All The Time Newsgroup!!! GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub! The tired of GetClub club rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 20 February 28th 08 07:24 PM
We Are Your All GetClub All The Time Newsgroup!!! GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub! The tired of GetClub club rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 17 February 28th 08 07:24 PM
We Are Your All GetClub All The Time Newsgroup!!! GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub! The tired of GetClub club rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 23 February 28th 08 07:24 PM
We Are Your All GetClub All The Time Newsgroup!!! GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub GetClub! The tired of GetClub club alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 19 February 28th 08 07:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017