| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2008 00:40:35
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
Today is laughing day for GetClub. HA Ha Ha.
Why? Today game was further improved.
In First Game, Beginner Level beat Jester like Carrots.
Then I tried Baby Level against Jester and the game was a Draw.
Baby Level makes moves in just 2 sec / move and Jester was thinking 3
sec / move.
Actually Baby Level had "Bishop and Knight" ending. Since GetClub do
not know how to win with "Bishop and Knight" It declared a draw.
GetClub was taking less time than Jester and still got strong
position. May be Jester was playing like a fool.
Game Played between sanjay11 and baby at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jester : (White)
baby: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM27157&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White -- Black
(Jester ) -- (baby)
1. e2-e4{2} Nb8-c6{0}
2. Nb1-c3{10} e7-e5{0}
3. Ng1-f3{14} Bf8-c5{2}
4. Bf1-b5{10} a7-a6{2}
5. Bb5-c6{10} d7-c6{2}
6. Ke1-g1{10} f7-f6{2}
7. d2-d3{10} a6-a5{4}
8. Bc1-e3{16} Bc5-e3{2}
9. f2-e3{10} Ng8-h6{8}
10. Nf3-e5{10} f6-e5{2}
11. Qd1-h5{10} Ke8-d7{4}
12. Qh5-e5{10} Qd8-e7{4}
13. Qe5-d4{10} Kd7-e8{2}
14. Kg1-h1{12} c6-c5{2}
15. Qd4-d5{10} g7-g6{2}
16. Nc3-b5{16} a5-a4{2}
17. Ra1-e1{14} g6-g5{6}
18. a2-a3{14} Rh8-g8{4}
19. Rf1-f6{12} Rg8-g6{2}
20. Re1-f1{10} Rg6-f6{2}
21. Rf1-f6{10} Qe7-f6{2}
22. Nb5-c7{10} Ke8-e7{2}
23. Qd5-c5{10} Ke7-d8{2}
24. h2-h3{10} b7-b6{2}
25. Qc5-d5{10} Kd8-c7{2}
26. Qd5-a8{10} Qf6-b2{2}
27. Qa8-a4{16} Qb2-c1{2}
28. Kh1-h2{6} Qc1-e3{2}
29. Qa4-c4{12} Qe3-c5{2}
30. Qc4-c5{14} b6-c5{2}
31. Kh2-g3{10} Kc7-d6{2}
32. Kg3-f2{10} Bc8-d7{4}
33. c2-c3{12} Nh6-f7{6}
34. d3-d4{14} c5-d4{2}
35. c3-d4{8} h7-h5{2}
36. Kf2-e3{10} h5-h4{2}
37. Ke3-f3{10} Nf7-h6{4}
38. Kf3-e3{10} Bd7-b5{8}
39. Ke3-f3{10} Nh6-f7{2}
40. g2-g3{14} h4-g3{2}
41. Kf3-g3{8} Bb5-d7{2}
42. h3-h4{10} g5-h4{2}
43. Kg3-h2{10} Nf7-d8{2}
44. Kh2-g2{10} Nd8-e6{4}
45. Kg2-h3{12} Ne6-g5{2}
46. Kh3-h4{10} Ng5-e4{2}
47. Kh4-h5{8} Kd6-d5{4}
48. Kh5-g6{10} Kd5-d4{2}
49. a3-a4{8} Bd7-e8{2}
50. Kg6-g7{8} Be8-a4{6}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jester : (White)
baby: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM27157&game=Chess
Since the above game is played by Baby Level which makes move in just
2 sec. You may find lots of mistakes in Baby Level game.
So you see how strongly even the Baby level played against Jester.
So now, Taylor Kingston and Help Bot will find GetClub much stronger
than ever.
And even GetClub Beginner Level will be very difficult to win.
With this improvement New Ratings for GetClub
Beginner: 2250+
Easy: 2350+
Normal: 2450+
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 16:39:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 20, 10:15=A0am, Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelm...@alice-
dsl.net > wrote:
> i was not aware that your post war irony. if i were i would not have
> answered but instead be amused.
>
> well, i guess i am just tired of people complaining that the bugs of
> their programs are results of the programming language they use instead
> of achknowledging that their skills are miserable and that using another
> language would not make any difference.
Many of the wannabe critics here in rgc appear
to be unaware of some vital facts. One example
is the fact (supposing Sanny's /consistency/ is
verification enough of truth) that it is not Sanny
himself who writes the programs, but people he
hires to do the job. A lot of rgc critics write in
such a way as to reveal an astounding ignorance
of this not-so-subtle difference.
Another fact is that many of the attempts by
/others/ also failed to observe the laws of chess.
I stumbled upon this time and again, reading
about the early days of chess programming. So
it is not only Sanny who has had some difficulties
in this area; he may be twenty-five or so years
behind the times, but he is hardly unique in that
respect.
Sanny has not, to my knowledge, revealed his
methods for selecting programmers, but it is
obvious that he went with the lowest bid. ; >D
I am reminded of a few chess books I've read,
where the authors employed some clerks who
quite obviously were unfamiliar with the game, to
translate from descriptive to algebraic notation;
the result was a sort of Innesian gibberish-- part
proper algebraic, part reversed or upside-down
notation.
No, I think everyone here knows full well that
the problems are unrelated to what specific
programming language is used-- except of
course, Sanny.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 02:36:46
From: Tobias Heidelmann
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
help bot schrieb:
> Many of the wannabe critics here in rgc appear
> to be unaware of some vital facts. One example
> is the fact (supposing Sanny's /consistency/ is
> verification enough of truth) that it is not Sanny
> himself who writes the programs, but people he
> hires to do the job. A lot of rgc critics write in
> such a way as to reveal an astounding ignorance
> of this not-so-subtle difference.
i really find this hard to believe. Ok, maybe his obvious ignorance
concerning computers and multitasking may be proof.
>
> Another fact is that many of the attempts by
> /others/ also failed to observe the laws of chess.
> I stumbled upon this time and again, reading
> about the early days of chess programming. So
> it is not only Sanny who has had some difficulties
> in this area; he may be twenty-five or so years
> behind the times, but he is hardly unique in that
> respect.
>
> Sanny has not, to my knowledge, revealed his
> methods for selecting programmers, but it is
> obvious that he went with the lowest bid. ;>D
this is very strange - if he actually hires programmers, this program
must have cost him quiet an amount of money. obviously he is not making
any money with it, but only investing.
> I am reminded of a few chess books I've read,
> where the authors employed some clerks who
> quite obviously were unfamiliar with the game, to
> translate from descriptive to algebraic notation;
> the result was a sort of Innesian gibberish-- part
> proper algebraic, part reversed or upside-down
> notation.
>
> No, I think everyone here knows full well that
> the problems are unrelated to what specific
> programming language is used-- except of
> course, Sanny.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 00:05:33
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 19, 11:48 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> FYI: all my references to improving 300 fold
> and so forth are intended as jokes, [...]
Oh-no, really? And I was sure that
you were just modest!
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 16:57:01
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
help bot wrote:
.
> > Is your game degrading? Are you not improving?
>
> Apparently, I am getting weaker by the day.
And you will continue to lose strength welp bot..
There is no escaping this ineluctable factoid of ageing & losing the odd
marble. & playing off against a sub-continental & philosophically
challenging 3rd world program-de-crapola will only hasten the
enervation..
With beseechment dear blot, surely, is it not incumbent uponeth thou to
return to the uncertain charms of Madame Rybka & foreswear all future
intercourse wiv GetFluck - no? for your own sanctity & sense of
wherewithall?..
Employ the time-honoured maneuver of two steps > one step < etc. in the
face of fatted cherubs, giggling, as they dance up & down on your
rotound balloon of profound gestation & join with me in telling Sanny
the spammy to stuff-it up his left elephant nostril..
After all, Swami-sanny really 'only' lusts after a 'undred gold
rolls-royces & 6 hundred golden-haired noo/yawrk virginal babes to
satiate his big appetite - no?..
Ha Ha Ha..
t.
>
> > > That is when I will make my move--
> > > slashing through and around them in a
> > > pinching maneuver, taking all of them
> > > prisoner and thus winning the undivided
> > > Class A prize, for once. Even the Experts
> > > will shudder to think they will have to face
> > > me in the final rounds, and all I need is a
> > > draw to take their arrogant, higher-rated
> > > selves down a peg. (But first, I need to
> > > iron out some problems I've been having
> > > with simple tactics.)
> >
> > What happened to your Tactics? Are you ill? Or your eyes problem has
> > not yet corrected?
>
> My eyesight has recovered significantly, but
> instead of playing blitz chess to sharpen my
> game, I have been doing many other things.
> I also bought a couple of new openings books,
> but have not yet seen the insides-- only the
> covers; that is no way to improve one's OTB
> results. When I do show up to play, I just
> "wing it", playing whatever looks interesting
> at the moment.
>
> At five rounds per day, these tourneys can
> be exhausting. I have found that after two or
> three long struggles, I often sit down against
> my next opponent and begin to play as
> though it were a casual blitz game. The
> funny thing is that I normally win effortlessly
> in these quicker-paced affairs, because my
> opponent will try to keep pace with me, and
> make some horrible blunder-- that's when I
> suddenly slow down and carefully polish
> him off.
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 23:48:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 19, 2:32=A0pm, Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelm...@alice-
dsl.net > wrote:
> > =A0 I can't seem to get a game to load anymore.
> > This reminds me of the old days, except that
> > I've gotten about three hundred times stronger
> > since then. =A0The Java applet always gives the
> > same error, and even if I forget about trying to
> > play a game and just update my info, there
> > are bugs. =A0If I ever write a chess program, I'm
> > definitely *not* going to write it in this bugster
> > language you use, but use C+++ or maybe
> > even B-minus.
> i have to object. if you are not an experienced programmer, C++ is much
> more prone to bugs than java - and more serious errors might result.
>
> The apparent buggyness of the chess program is definitely not an effect
> of the programming language.
FYI: all my references to improving 300 fold
and so forth are intended as jokes, poking fun
at Sanny's own commentaries here in rgc.
> Everything indicates that Sanny messed up his code. Apparantly he does
> not understand it himself anymore. He told us so: he said recently that
> every time he makes an "improvement", bugs appear. a clear indication
> that he has lost view of the broad concept of his program or maybe there
> is no clear concept /modularisation of his software.
Many, many, many years ago, I learned
about this "modular" programming, where
each separate function can be tested
independently, thus simplifying the de-
bugging process which seems to take
up 99% of Sanny's time and effort. I'm
trying to recall the first time this came up
in my now-ancient studies... I believe it
was with PL/1 that this concept first
appeared in my courses.
> no matter what language, both amateur and professional are bound to mess
> up (even moderately) complicated programs if they do not carefully
> structure their software architecture.
I can still recall taking an introductory
computer class (after a college transfer),
where I observed people trying to learn
how to write the simplest of programs,
and I remember how it was obvious that
a few of them simply were doomed to
fail, not understanding logic and how it
is crucial to the process. With chess,
this is even more important, because
the process can become very complex.
The rules of chess alone are quite
complex. For instance, the en passant
exception to how pawns can capture
introduces a pain-in-the-neck to the
chess programmer, as do the two
castling moves, where two men are
moved in an abnormal way at the very
same time. Pawn promotions, the fact
that King's may not be captured or
allowed to remain in check-- these are
all nuisances which must be dealt with
before even beginning to tackle strategy
in chess.
From my perspective, many of the
problems Sanny has been experien-
cing are related to this confounding
complexity of the game itself, although
there really is no excuse for his refusal
to use *free* help in eliminating his
multitudinous Web site problems.
When I played the program called
"Jester" myself, I found it to be quite
good, despite that it was also a Java
applet, just like Sanny's program; no
bugs there, and no issues with speed
or random hangs in mid-game. But it
is possible that /some/of the problems
I've experienced with Sanny's GetClub
program are related to my computer,
as it is clear that "Jebediah" can and
does complete games against levels
which always hang on my machine.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 16:15:22
From: Tobias Heidelmann
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
help bot schrieb:
> On Sep 19, 2:32 pm, Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelm...@alice-
> dsl.net> wrote:
> ...
i was not aware that your post war irony. if i were i would not have
answered but instead be amused.
well, i guess i am just tired of people complaining that the bugs of
their programs are results of the programming language they use instead
of achknowledging that their skills are miserable and that using another
language would not make any difference.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 05:10:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 19, 2:22=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> There has been huge improvement from last time you played at GetClub.
> If you tried 1 month back then today GetClub Chess is 5 times stronger
> than it was 1 month back.
>
> One month back there were arrounf 4 bugs that have been removed.
>
> So play a new hgame and tell me if you see the difference.
I can't seem to get a game to load anymore.
This reminds me of the old days, except that
I've gotten about three hundred times stronger
since then. The Java applet always gives the
same error, and even if I forget about trying to
play a game and just update my info, there
are bugs. If I ever write a chess program, I'm
definitely *not* going to write it in this bugster
language you use, but use C+++ or maybe
even B-minus.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 20:32:23
From: Tobias Heidelmann
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
help bot schrieb:
> On Sep 19, 2:22 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There has been huge improvement from last time you played at GetClub.
>> If you tried 1 month back then today GetClub Chess is 5 times stronger
>> than it was 1 month back.
>>
>> One month back there were arrounf 4 bugs that have been removed.
>>
>> So play a new hgame and tell me if you see the difference.
>
>
> I can't seem to get a game to load anymore.
> This reminds me of the old days, except that
> I've gotten about three hundred times stronger
> since then. The Java applet always gives the
> same error, and even if I forget about trying to
> play a game and just update my info, there
> are bugs. If I ever write a chess program, I'm
> definitely *not* going to write it in this bugster
> language you use, but use C+++ or maybe
> even B-minus.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
i have to object. if you are not an experienced programmer, C++ is much
more prone to bugs than java - and more serious errors might result.
The apparent buggyness of the chess program is definitely not an effect
of the programming language.
Everything indicates that Sanny messed up his code. Apparantly he does
not understand it himself anymore. He told us so: he said recently that
every time he makes an "improvement", bugs appear. a clear indication
that he has lost view of the broad concept of his program or maybe there
is no clear concept /modularisation of his software.
no matter what language, both amateur and professional are bound to mess
up (even moderately) complicated programs if they do not carefully
structure their software architecture.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 21:24:14
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:32:23 +0200, Tobias Heidelmann
<[email protected] > wrote:
>help bot schrieb:
>> On Sep 19, 2:22 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> There has been huge improvement from last time you played at GetClub.
>>> If you tried 1 month back then today GetClub Chess is 5 times stronger
>>> than it was 1 month back.
>>>
>>> One month back there were arrounf 4 bugs that have been removed.
>>>
>>> So play a new hgame and tell me if you see the difference.
>>
>>
>> I can't seem to get a game to load anymore.
>> This reminds me of the old days, except that
>> I've gotten about three hundred times stronger
>> since then. The Java applet always gives the
>> same error, and even if I forget about trying to
>> play a game and just update my info, there
>> are bugs. If I ever write a chess program, I'm
>> definitely *not* going to write it in this bugster
>> language you use, but use C+++ or maybe
>> even B-minus.
>>
>>
>> -- help bot
>>
>>
>i have to object. if you are not an experienced programmer, C++ is much
>more prone to bugs than java - and more serious errors might result.
>
>The apparent buggyness of the chess program is definitely not an effect
>of the programming language.
>
>Everything indicates that Sanny messed up his code. Apparantly he does
>not understand it himself anymore. He told us so: he said recently that
>every time he makes an "improvement", bugs appear. a clear indication
>that he has lost view of the broad concept of his program or maybe there
>is no clear concept /modularisation of his software.
>
>no matter what language, both amateur and professional are bound to mess
>up (even moderately) complicated programs if they do not carefully
>structure their software architecture.
I'd take a well-written program in assembly any day over a poorly
written program in Java (or any other language for that matter).
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 23:33:14
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> > A Player "Fingerfehler" won against the Advance Level. His game Froze
> > 3 times. He sent me screenshots of the game and I could see what
> > really happened.
> > He used to show look number of seconds have exceeded 20,000 sec and
> > the Master level has not yet made the move. Then a bug was found which
> > hangs to computer at higher levels.
> =A0 How is that possible? =A0 Is there an overflow
> condition, an endless loop, or what?
> > That thing was corrected. So now Master Level will not freeze.
Yes your guess was correct that was overflow problem. As Master level
kept thinking some variables value exceed their limits.
Now the overflow value has been increased So that it do not hang.
If the program hangs it will keep thinking forever.
I have made a cutoff time. So that when cutoff for that level has come
it will play the best move and stop thinking immidietly.
Beginner Level: cutoff: 80 sec
Easy Level: cutoff: 320 sec
Normal Level: cutoff: 1280 sec
Master Level: cutoff: 5120 sec
When program hangs it will continue thinking even after cutoff time
has passed. Which means there is some error.
Finger feller showed that and his bug was removed. Then he was able to
continue his game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 23:27:59
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> =A0 When I resume a game in progress at
> GetClub, the site's "logic" forces me to
> once again pick my level and so forth-- a
> simple logic error since having a game in
> progress leaves but one choice: resume
> that game or not. =A0 There is also a very
> annoying tendency for the site to pop up
> new windows during play, as if trying to
> distract and annoy the human opponent
> (i.e. cheat).
The Levels Beginner, Easy, Normal ... On the page is just to tell new
visitors about the Levels GetClub has. You can see there is no "Baby
Level".
You can get inside by even clicking the "Computer image" on side. It
is just the entry point.
It is only inside the applet you have to choose the color of piece
"White/ Black" and the level you wish to play at.
I am waiting to see you and Normal Level. As it would be a very tough
game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 23:22:49
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
There has been huge improvement from last time you played at GetClub.
If you tried 1 month back then today GetClub Chess is 5 times stronger
than it was 1 month back.
One month back there were arrounf 4 bugs that have been removed.
So play a new hgame and tell me if you see the difference.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 16:05:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 18, 4:55=A0pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Let me know when your user interface is usable.
> The last time I tried to use GetDumb, I picked up a knight. A shadow of
> the knight stayed stuck on its square. When I dropped the piece on its
> new square, GetDumb accepted my move as Nf3-f3, and made its move. =A0
>
> I hoped GetClub would save the gamescore -- I opened with Nb1-c3 Nc3-b1
> Nb1-c3 Nc3-b1 until I had to do something real; GetDumb eventually lost
> a queen ending -- =A0so I could reproduce it here, but the piece of shit
> must've been in a bad state. It resigned, then crashed.
>
> What a piece of crap. The software is a perfect reflection of its
> developer, who'll probably insist it was user error, or my slow computer.
Many months ago, someone posted a link
to a *free* Web site or program which checks
for HTML errors, so that Sanny could clean up
his site and make it work properly. That offer
of free help was rejected, perhaps because so
many nasty critics were assailing poor Sanny
at the time, from every direction.
After visiting a few other Web sites, I now
believe the critics over-did their attacks on
Sanny's. Personally, I think it is silly to have
a "page" where the chess board is half on
and half off screen, and one must scroll
down to center it. But this scrolling is very
common with other Web sites, as is the
clutter on either side of the center section.
In fact, many sites have two (or more) ways
of getting to exactly the same link-- one at
the top, and one on the side, for instance;
this is redundant clutter, IMO.
When I resume a game in progress at
GetClub, the site's "logic" forces me to
once again pick my level and so forth-- a
simple logic error since having a game in
progress leaves but one choice: resume
that game or not. There is also a very
annoying tendency for the site to pop up
new windows during play, as if trying to
distract and annoy the human opponent
(i.e. cheat).
Many times, the Java applet simply will
not load. I have even tried switching to
Internet Explorer (from Firefox) and the
very same thing happens. Even when
it does load correctly, the process takes
much longer than with other sites, so
there is definitely something wrong.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 15:46:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 18, 2:03=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> There was a problem with Master & Advance level that they froze after
> thinking 1 hour. Now that thing has been corrected.
>
> A Player "Fingerfehler" won against the Advance Level. His game Froze
> 3 times. He sent me screenshots of the game and I could see what
> really happened.
>
> He used to show look number of seconds have exceeded 20,000 sec and
> the Master level has not yet made the move. Then a bug was found which
> hangs to computer at higher levels.
How is that possible? Is there an overflow
condition, an endless loop, or what?
> That thing was corrected. So now Master Level will not freeze.
That comment is being archived for later
reference. ; >D
> Master will always play in 5120 sec. If time exceeds 5120 seconds the
> Program will force it to play the move.
Ah, so then I can now "safely" do what Zeb
has been doing all along-- woof easy rating
points (though he has already picked the low-
hanging fruits).
> > so, I have been plagued by tactical errors
> > and "weakies" who poured their heart and
> > soul into beating me, because of my much
> > higher rating. =A0 But no more... =A0 my OTB
> > rating is crumbling fast, and soon we will
> > be on level ground, the other weakies and
>
> Is your game degrading? Are you not improving?
Apparently, I am getting weaker by the day.
> > =A0 That is when I will make my move--
> > slashing through and around them in a
> > pinching maneuver, taking all of them
> > prisoner and thus winning the undivided
> > Class A prize, for once. =A0 Even the Experts
> > will shudder to think they will have to face
> > me in the final rounds, and all I need is a
> > draw to take their arrogant, higher-rated
> > selves down a peg. =A0 (But first, I need to
> > iron out some problems I've been having
> > with simple tactics.)
>
> What happened to your Tactics? Are you ill? Or your eyes problem has
> not yet corrected?
My eyesight has recovered significantly, but
instead of playing blitz chess to sharpen my
game, I have been doing many other things.
I also bought a couple of new openings books,
but have not yet seen the insides-- only the
covers; that is no way to improve one's OTB
results. When I do show up to play, I just
"wing it", playing whatever looks interesting
at the moment.
At five rounds per day, these tourneys can
be exhausting. I have found that after two or
three long struggles, I often sit down against
my next opponent and begin to play as
though it were a casual blitz game. The
funny thing is that I normally win effortlessly
in these quicker-paced affairs, because my
opponent will try to keep pace with me, and
make some horrible blunder-- that's when I
suddenly slow down and carefully polish
him off.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 12:39:53
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 16, 11:14 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:21 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 12:40 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Today is laughing day forGetClub. HA Ha Ha.
>
> > > Why? Today game was further improved.
>
> > Ha Ha Ha.
>
> > Wlod
>
> Play a few games then say Ha Ha Ha.
> Let me know if you win any game.
Let me know when your user interface is usable.
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 13:55:10
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
In article
<210a21f4-203b-4864-962d-6d19902f08f2@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com >,
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Let me know when your user interface is usable.
The last time I tried to use GetDumb, I picked up a knight. A shadow of
the knight stayed stuck on its square. When I dropped the piece on its
new square, GetDumb accepted my move as Nf3-f3, and made its move.
I hoped GetClub would save the gamescore -- I opened with Nb1-c3 Nc3-b1
Nb1-c3 Nc3-b1 until I had to do something real; GetDumb eventually lost
a queen ending -- so I could reproduce it here, but the piece of shit
must've been in a bad state. It resigned, then crashed.
What a piece of crap. The software is a perfect reflection of its
developer, who'll probably insist it was user error, or my slow computer.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 12:03:56
From: SBD
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 18, 9:29=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Master will always play in 5120 sec. If time exceeds 5120 seconds the
> > Program will force it to play the move.
>
> That fast? =A0Only 5120 seconds for a single move? =A0Why ... that's less
> than 90 minutes!
Sanny - the Rube Goldberg of chess programming.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 07:29:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> Master will always play in 5120 sec. If time exceeds 5120 seconds the
> Program will force it to play the move.
That fast? Only 5120 seconds for a single move? Why ... that's less
than 90 minutes!
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 23:03:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> > Last time you took 98 moves to win the Normal Level. Now, GetClub is
> > much improved So you will find it much difficult to win the Normal
> > Level.
>
> =A0 Hmm. =A0Suppose I were to take this approach,
> posting each of my *short* wins and claiming
> that from now on, the GetClub program was
> doomed? =A0 I could even annotate a few, very
> carefully chosen games, to make it clear that
> the program was playing around the 1000
> USCF level -- maybe even lower.
I wont feel bad when someone finds mistake in GetClub game as that
helps in improving the game.
GetClub today plays so good all bercause of your analysis and
suggestions.
>=A0I can also still beat the
> Master level, as you saw when the game
> froze up in a dead lost position -- as it often
> does. =A0 The program simply refuses to move
> at the end of the game, where I am dicing it
> like carrots.
There was a problem with Master & Advance level that they froze after
thinking 1 hour. Now that thing has been corrected.
A Player "Fingerfehler" won against the Advance Level. His game Froze
3 times. He sent me screenshots of the game and I could see what
really happened.
He used to show look number of seconds have exceeded 20,000 sec and
the Master level has not yet made the move. Then a bug was found which
hangs to computer at higher levels.
That thing was corrected. So now Master Level will not freeze.
Master will always play in 5120 sec. If time exceeds 5120 seconds the
Program will force it to play the move.
> so, I have been plagued by tactical errors
> and "weakies" who poured their heart and
> soul into beating me, because of my much
> higher rating. =A0 But no more... =A0 my OTB
> rating is crumbling fast, and soon we will
> be on level ground, the other weakies and
Is your game degrading? Are you not improving?
> =A0 That is when I will make my move--
> slashing through and around them in a
> pinching maneuver, taking all of them
> prisoner and thus winning the undivided
> Class A prize, for once. =A0 Even the Experts
> will shudder to think they will have to face
> me in the final rounds, and all I need is a
> draw to take their arrogant, higher-rated
> selves down a peg. =A0 (But first, I need to
> iron out some problems I've been having
> with simple tactics.)
What happened to your Tactics? Are you ill? Or your eyes problem has
not yet corrected?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 17:18:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 17, 11:07=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Can you still win the Normal Level?
>
> Last time you took 98 moves to win the Normal Level. Now, GetClub is
> much improved So you will find it much difficult to win the Normal
> Level.
Hmm. Suppose I were to take this approach,
posting each of my *short* wins and claiming
that from now on, the GetClub program was
doomed? I could even annotate a few, very
carefully chosen games, to make it clear that
the program was playing around the 1000
USCF level -- maybe even lower.
Of course I can still beat the Normal level;
look at its rating-- beaten to a pulp by yours
truly! I noticed that the Baby level was not
that much lower. I can also still beat the
Master level, as you saw when the game
froze up in a dead lost position -- as it often
does. The program simply refuses to move
at the end of the game, where I am dicing it
like carrots.
The only thing keeping your top levels up
near 2200 is the fact that your program is
so buggy! It is much less frustrating to
beat up on the lower levels, restarting the
computer or browser when necessary.
But this means striking a balance between
decent play and getting other things done
while the program thinks. In my recent
over-the-board tourneys, I sat at the board
and focused on the game, rarely trying to
observe other games in progress. Even
so, I have been plagued by tactical errors
and "weakies" who poured their heart and
soul into beating me, because of my much
higher rating. But no more... my OTB
rating is crumbling fast, and soon we will
be on level ground, the other weakies and
I.
That is when I will make my move--
slashing through and around them in a
pinching maneuver, taking all of them
prisoner and thus winning the undivided
Class A prize, for once. Even the Experts
will shudder to think they will have to face
me in the final rounds, and all I need is a
draw to take their arrogant, higher-rated
selves down a peg. (But first, I need to
iron out some problems I've been having
with simple tactics.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 08:07:39
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> =A0 If I just wanted to win, I could take White
> in every game and play d4, e3, f4, Nf3,
> Bd3, O-O, c3, Ne5, fxe5, Bxh7+, etc.
Can you still win the Normal Level?
Last time you took 98 moves to win the Normal Level. Now, GetClub is
much improved So you will find it much difficult to win the Normal
Level.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 23:30:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 17, 2:08=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > With this improvement New Ratings for GetClub
>
> > > Beginner: 2250+
> > > Easy: 2350+
> > > Normal: 2450+
>
> > =A0 In that case, we need more levels added to the
> > bottom end; we need a bacterium level, an amoeba
> > level, a paramecium level, and maybe an algae
> > level to fill in the gap between us and "Baby" level.
> > Thanks!
>
> Today I find your game with Easy Level was drawn. And in other game
> too the Easy level gave a good fight.
>
> So are you finding that GetClub is playing much stronger now?
No. If you look at the game I drew, you will
see that I snatched an extra Rook-- just like
Mr. Fischer did against Mr. Taimanov in
their candidates match. The difference is
that unlike him, I am switching back and
forth to other tasks, and this has cost me
dearly. Still, I learned that my clumsy
approach to converting a win is not good
enough; I need to hunker down and find a
plan or else just trade Queens, knowing
this will lengthen the game greatly in both
number of moves and time. (In one case,
my switching caused me to sell a wrong
stock which I had merely intended to
protect with a stop-loss order--yikes!)
Just remember that I am trying to play
interesting games-- not hide behind a wall
of pawns, waiting for the inevitable
positional blunder. There are *many*
games where I have an opportunity to
trade pieces and win, but choose not to
because it would needlessly lengthen
the games ("help bot took 100 moves to
win, ha ha ha!"). I try different openings,
which I may not really understand well--
like Alekhine's Defense. And I even play
bad lines, such as my imitation of Mr.
Steinitz's Ruy Lopez (which I know to be
easily refutable).
If I just wanted to win, I could take White
in every game and play d4, e3, f4, Nf3,
Bd3, O-O, c3, Ne5, fxe5, Bxh7+, etc.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 23:14:37
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 17, 10:21=A0am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 12:40 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Today is laughing day forGetClub. HA Ha Ha.
>
> > Why? Today game was further improved.
>
> Ha Ha Ha.
>
> =A0 =A0 Wlod
Play a few games then say Ha Ha Ha. Let me know if you win any game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 23:09:30
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
> Then why can't GC solve at least 90% of the Win-At-Chessin under 30
> seconds?
>
> Most programs that are about that strength can do it in quite a bit less
> than 30 seconds.
I have not made the WAC test after the improvement. I will do and let
you know the result.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 23:08:15
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 16, 10:59=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 3:40=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > With this improvement New Ratings for GetClub
>
> > Beginner: 2250+
> > Easy: 2350+
> > Normal: 2450+
>
> =A0 In that case, we need more levels added to the
> bottom end; we need a bacterium level, an amoeba
> level, a paramecium level, and maybe an algae
> level to fill in the gap between us and "Baby" level.
> Thanks!
Today I find your game with Easy Level was drawn. And in other game
too the Easy level gave a good fight.
So are you finding that GetClub is playing much stronger now?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 22:21:33
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 16, 12:40 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Today is laughing day for GetClub. HA Ha Ha.
>
> Why? Today game was further improved.
Ha Ha Ha.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 11:36:45
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On 16 Set, 09:40, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Beginner: 2250+
> Easy: 2350+
> Normal: 2450+
This must be real fun, let me try it myself :
Beginner : 2350 +
Easy : 2450 +
Normal : 2600 +
Alessandro J. : 2650 +
Yes, I feel a lot better now, try it yourselves !
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 13:26:43
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
Sanny;
> With this improvement New Ratings for GetClub
>
> Beginner: 2250+
> Easy: 2350+
> Normal: 2450+
Then why can't GC solve at least 90% of the Win-At-Chess in under 30
seconds?
Most programs that are about that strength can do it in quite a bit less
than 30 seconds.
And it's certainly not because yours is in Java. If your program really has
that rating, then it really has that rating and ability, regardless of the
language its written with.
It should also get all mate's with depths of 10 or less even on the beginner
level. True, it's a "beginner" level, but if it's really rated at 2250,
then it has to be strong enough to get all mates to at least 10.
You should also be getting at least 12 of those Bratko-Kopec tests I posted,
using the time scoring method I said before.
Hear are some examples from an 1989 paper. These are from the 6th world
computer chess championshop in 1989.
Awit-1983 = 16
CrayBlitz = 20
Deep Thought=17
HiTech=16
Mephisto=18
Rebel=18
It should be noted that:
1) Your P4 is vastly more powerful than the hardware they ran on way back
then.
2) The Awit-1983 is the *selective search* program Awit from 1983. Yes, I
said selective search. It doesn't even look at all the moves.
3) That if your program really does have the strength you claim, it should
be able to smash their test results.
No, I don't expect you to report results. Doing so would show you are lying
about the ratings you post.
And it's certainly not because you don't know better, because we've told you
too many times how to get real ratings and how to even *estimate* real
ratings.
But you prefer your flawed way better because it sounds better.
----== 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 =---
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 10:59:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Ha Ha Ha, GetClub Ha Ha Ha ...
|
On Sep 16, 3:40=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> With this improvement New Ratings for GetClub
>
> Beginner: 2250+
> Easy: 2350+
> Normal: 2450+
In that case, we need more levels added to the
bottom end; we need a bacterium level, an amoeba
level, a paramecium level, and maybe an algae
level to fill in the gap between us and "Baby" level.
Thanks!
-- help bot
|
|
