| |
Main
Date: 26 Jun 2008 09:28:25
From: Sanny
Subject: Zebediah made the King dance from e8-a1.
|
An interesting game by Zebediah against Advance Level..
Black King had to run out from e8 to a1. Zebediah trapped Black's Rook
and win easily.
Most interesting was how Black King ran from e8 to a1 But atlast has
to surrender.
Game Played between zebediah and advance at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21199&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White -- Black
(zebediah) -- (advance)
1. d2-d4{16} d7-d5{0}
2. c2-c4{4} e7-e6{0}
3. Nb1-c3{4} Ng8-f6{0}
4. Ng1-f3{4} c7-c6{0}
5. e2-e3{4} d5-c4{1812}
6. Bf1-c4{17078} b7-b5{0}
7. Bc4-d3{8} Bf8-d6{1878}
8. e3-e4{712} b5-b4{1330}
9. e4-e5{834} b4-c3{1314}
10. b2-c3{58} Bc8-a6{3050}
11. e5-f6{976} g7-f6{2310}
12. Bd3-a6{310} Nb8-a6{3116}
13. Ke1-g1{3802} Na6-c7{1544}
14. Bc1-h6{810} Rh8-g8{1732}
15. Rf1-e1{866} Rg8-g6{1702}
16. Bh6-d2{396} Qd8-d7{1578}
17. Ra1-b1{192} c6-c5{2608}
18. Nf3-h4{790} Rg6-g8{1286}
19. Qd1-f3{24} Nc7-d5{1416}
20. c3-c4{142} Nd5-c7{1344}
21. Bd2-a5{864} Ra8-d8{2940}
22. Nh4-f5{11778} c5-d4{2592}
23. Nf5-d6{1240} Qd7-d6{1620}
24. Rb1-b7{298} Rd8-c8{1780}
25. Ba5-c7{118} Rc8-c7{2488}
26. Rb7-b8{7848} Ke8-e7{0}
27. Rb8-g8{4} Qd6-b4{1746}
28. Re1-e6{198} f7-e6{2934}
29. Rg8-g7{186} Ke7-d8{2282}
30. Qf3-a8{140} Rc7-c8{2056}
31. Rg7-g8{212} Kd8-e7{2946}
32. Qa8-a7{66} Ke7-d6{2432}
33. Qa7-d4{400} Kd6-c7{1936}
34. Rg8-g7{12} Kc7-c6{1310}
35. Qd4-d7{338} Kc6-c5{1916}
36. Qd7-c8{220} Kc5-d4{1990}
37. Qc8-d7{2912} Kd4-c3{1536}
38. Qd7-d1{288} Kc3-b2{1654}
39. Rg7-d7{66} Qb4-c4{1590}
40. Qd1-d2{1114} Kb2-a1{148}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21199&game=Chess
What do you think Advance Level was wrong that it lost its Rook?
Can you spot any mistake in this interesting game?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 01:54:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> Well, I'm glad your program is already playing good Chess.
>
> But learning a bit about how Chess programs work, such as learning
> about A-B pruning, would definitely help you improve your program
> still further, and it is not nearly as hard to do that as it would be
> to, say, add 400 points to your Elo.
After AB was used not much improvement was found. Only 30-40%
improvement found. Any other thing that can improve the program.
As Playing 30% faster keeps the game fast. So even if it has slow
improvement its worth it.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 18:01:32
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 1, 11:27 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else
> every one will be a grand master.
Well, I'm glad your program is already playing good Chess.
But learning a bit about how Chess programs work, such as learning
about A-B pruning, would definitely help you improve your program
still further, and it is not nearly as hard to do that as it would be
to, say, add 400 points to your Elo.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 17:18:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 1, 5:15 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
> > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
> > useful knowledge in either.
> That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or
> persuade him to learn anything.
With the amazing speed of todays computers,
perhaps a decent chess program can be made
without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other
chess-centric programming techniques. We
know that ignoring tactics leads to mediocrity,
but suppose someone were to focus on getting
the tactics right-- what then? In one of my
recent games, I landed a very shallow tactical
blow-- but suppose the speed and power of
modern computers were harnessed and aimed
squarely at this crucial aspect? Who knows
what would happen. I sometimes feel that my
computer's microprocessor is just spinning its
wheels with GetClub; that I'm out-running it
only because it is churning its own tires into
molten rubber while staying in the same spot
and burning lots of gas.
> Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project.
Flash is the guy who keeps scolding
Sanny for supposedly spamming rgc, all the
while appending dozens of lines of real spam
to each of his own postings; this guy is
about as smart as a box of rocks. He
reminds me of nearly-IMnes in that respect.
But what Sanny really needs is a real, live
wolf; that way, when he screams "wolf!" and
people ask him "where?", he can just point
to his collaborator and say "right there".
Even a Siberian Husky would do.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 23:29:22
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:18:10 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 1, 5:15 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
>> > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
>> > useful knowledge in either.
>
>> That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or
>> persuade him to learn anything.
>
> With the amazing speed of todays computers,
>perhaps a decent chess program can be made
>without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other
>chess-centric programming techniques. We
>know that ignoring tactics leads to mediocrity,
>but suppose someone were to focus on getting
>the tactics right-- what then? In one of my
>recent games, I landed a very shallow tactical
>blow-- but suppose the speed and power of
>modern computers were harnessed and aimed
>squarely at this crucial aspect? Who knows
>what would happen. I sometimes feel that my
>computer's microprocessor is just spinning its
>wheels with GetClub; that I'm out-running it
>only because it is churning its own tires into
>molten rubber while staying in the same spot
>and burning lots of gas.
When you write a chess program, I think it's a pretty fair statement
that you have to be knowledgeable in both fields, or at least know
someone.
Ignoring tactics also leads to worse than mediocrity in programming.
Hate to burst your bubble, but pruners and hash tables are hardly
chess-centric programming techniques. The A-B table is straight out of
game theory (which comes into more mundane things now such as search
engines), and the hash table is pretty much used whenever you use any
database (Apache uses them. Java has them as a class for pete's sake).
Why are they pretty standard in the chess game toolkit? Because
chess has a massive amount of possible moves. Get 5-6 ply and your
move set is at least in the billions. Every pieces adds at least an
order of magnitude. A queen for example can have up to 28 different
places it can move (a knight or king 8, a bishop/rook 14, and even a
pawn has 4 possible moves).
If you notice, every respectable chess program scores the position.
Why? Because that score is used for A-B pruning. Basically, you don't
trace down the less-than-favorible lines (basically, this determines
the breadth. Depth is difficulty). Sure, you can put your queen next
to your opponents' pawn to be taken in the next half ply, but if you
have better moves, do you really want to analyze the permutations of
that?
In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
program can be made without sorting, I would have to say it's possible
a roomful of monkeys can write Shakepeare. Possible, but EXTREMELY
unlikely.
The fact that such things didn't occur to Sanny very much implies
that his code is written as a journey. A journey that burns bridges.
It's one thing to write a chess program, and not know one of the
domains. It's either arrogant or ignorant to not know either.
>
>
>> Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project.
>
> Flash is the guy who keeps scolding
>Sanny for supposedly spamming rgc, all the
>while appending dozens of lines of real spam
>to each of his own postings; this guy is
>about as smart as a box of rocks. He
>reminds me of nearly-IMnes in that respect.
>
> But what Sanny really needs is a real, live
>wolf; that way, when he screams "wolf!" and
>people ask him "where?", he can just point
>to his collaborator and say "right there".
>Even a Siberian Husky would do.
>
I'm not so sure Sanny would pass a Turing test at this point... If
nothing else, he's optimistic. His website about management and stuff
gave me a chuckle.
Kind of reminds me of my 20's, where a bunch of us would sit around,
and talk of starting up a company. But none of us really had an idea
on what we wanted to do. That's where a plan comes in.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 10:27:18
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning.
> The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an
> exception.
>
> I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
> programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
> useful knowledge in either.
Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else
every one will be a grand master.
I am just 1100 rated player. I just play Chess in my free time
Occasionaly Just for fun.
Even Beginner Level pushes my limits. So I do not understand how
others are winning against the higher levels.
I find only arround 10 / 1000 players at GetClub are able to win
higher levels Other 990 Players are beaten by even the Beginner Level.
A few of the Top players use other Commercial Program So Only 3
Players actually win with Brain Power.
Players who win with Brains and not taking other help are.
1. Help Bot.
2. Bonsai.
3. Chrisf.
Rest all are even weaker than the Beginner Level.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 23:32:25
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning.
>> The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an
>> exception.
>>
>> I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
>> programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
>> useful knowledge in either.
>
>Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else
>every one will be a grand master.
That's not the issue. You need some basic strategies however.
>
>I am just 1100 rated player. I just play Chess in my free time
>Occasionaly Just for fun.
Me and my brothers play on occasion.
>
>Even Beginner Level pushes my limits. So I do not understand how
>others are winning against the higher levels.
THAT's the issue. Many things seem to be pushing the limits. You've
made the comment that the program is getting complicated.
>
>I find only arround 10 / 1000 players at GetClub are able to win
>higher levels Other 990 Players are beaten by even the Beginner Level.
>
>A few of the Top players use other Commercial Program So Only 3
>Players actually win with Brain Power.
Do you think you're attracting top-tier chess players with your
program?
>
>Players who win with Brains and not taking other help are.
>
>1. Help Bot.
>2. Bonsai.
>3. Chrisf.
>
>Rest all are even weaker than the Beginner Level.
>
>Bye
>Sanny
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 23:30:57
From: Sanny
Subject: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> =A0 Understood. =A0However, there is a titanic
> difference between "good versus bad" moves
> and evaluating what is or is not legal.
>
> =A0 If there are but *two* legal moves, both a
> human player and achessengine might
> crank away at them, evaluating deeply and
> considering which is better. =A0But when there
> is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and
> whiling away of hours in the world cannot
> ever change that fact. =A0To do so would
Yes, now I understand what you mean. You were not talking abt weak
moves but legal moves.
So this have been corrected now. If there is "only 1 legal move" it
will play that move in just 1 second instead of thinking for 3-5 min.
That will save a lot of players time when there is only one legal move
and he is playing with Master / Advance Level.
In a game such moves occur only 1/2/3 times. But that will save
GetClubs time in every game.
Play a few game and let me know, When there is (only one legal move )
if its plays legal moves in 1 second or not.
The programmer has corrected it. But not yet tested it. That you have
to find by playing a few games.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
And by seeing recorded games we can see if it is playing such moves
instantaniously or not.
That was a very good advice.
Now in every game 1-2 min will be saved.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 22:15:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 4, 1:41 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> Good, you can look up acronyms.
This lack of perceptiveness is telling. Dr. Sir
Phillip IMnes would and indeed has pretended
to know funky stuff, to try and impress the
weak-minded. But I have no /need/ to do that
sort of thing; my record in the Big One we
fought in Grenada gives me -- and the entire
flight crew of my sub -- all the accolades I
could ever desire!
Seriously fella, if you are impressed by an
introductory class such as this one I took in
college a quarter-century ago, perhaps you
just need to get out more. Don't sweat it,
kid-- it may be obsolete knowledge. Here's
a bone, Fido: I don't know HTML (gasp!).
> And I'll reiterate, UNIX used hash tables. So did the 1ESS.
Who sold them? Was Bill Gates the only
prospective customer? What about the rest
of us-- the peons? (Zorro will school you, if
you refuse to respect us peons.)
> >> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the
> >> promotion.
> > That's why you'll never become world champ.
> >You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... .
> Never aspired to be world champ.
That's what they all say, /after/ they realize
how pointless it would be to try. Unlike you,
I readily admit that I mulled it over a time or
two; but after I got scholars-mated a couple
of times by nerdy-looking kids who screamed
"CHECK!" so the whole world knew I got
crushed, I reconsidered. (Besides, how was
I supposed to get past Bobby Fischer, who
was expected to come back out of retirement
at any moment?)
> Again, do you have a point, other than contradiction? Anything
> constructive to add perhaps?
Yes. I would like to add that you have failed
to respond to your horrific blunder just below:
> >> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use
> >> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the
> >> best-looking lines first.
The Guest revealed that you were just lost
in space here-- what do you have to say for
your arrogant, snotty, wrong self?
> >> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
> >> >> program can be made without sorting.
> > That was /your idea/, not mine.
> No, your idea. Your idea because you said it's possible to write a
> program without using existing strategies.
Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a
/pattern/ here?
> > Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search
> >was a good one, except that it is even more crucial
> >for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search
> >first.
> WTF is quiessence?
It is the way we misspell the fancy word for "quiet
position" where I come from (as I already indicated).
Are you always this slow?
> Do you mean quiescence?
You tell me, Mr. Know-it-all No-help.
> I still contend fix the strategy
Shift duly noted. Your original position was
that Sanny needed to increase *speed*.
> If you have a barge cobbled together with
> garbage, it ain't going to be graceful, no matter how much chrome you
> put on it.
Agreed. I think the results indicate that
no matter how fast or slow, the tactics are
being seriously mishandled, and my guess
is that his programmers don't know about
the importance of "quiet positions" and
their relationship to calculating tactics in
chess. I have consistently pounded the
table, screaming at the top of my lungs
that I can not and will not be beaten by a
player/program which simply hangs its
pieces to me! (Well, not often, anyway.)
I reject the idea -- regardless of source --
that merely speeding things up will solve
this problem, because even at the lower
levels it should not exist-- yet it does.
To simplify, calculating tactics correctly
is more important than strategy, and this
ought to be priority number one (apart from
playing chess /in accordance with the
rules/).
Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like
say, a link to a Web site which explains
precisely how it is done. Or are you just
going to continue your jabbering?
I have (repeatedly) admitted not knowing
enough about this to explain how it is done.
You obviously also know very little (but you
might know someone, who knows someone,
who knows how it is done). ; >D
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 18:22:27
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:15:29 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 4, 1:41 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Seriously fella, if you are impressed by an
>introductory class such as this one I took in
>college a quarter-century ago, perhaps you
>just need to get out more. Don't sweat it,
>kid-- it may be obsolete knowledge. Here's
>a bone, Fido: I don't know HTML (gasp!).
>
I'm a systems programmer, and don't know HTML either. There's programs
to do tha anyway.
>
>> And I'll reiterate, UNIX used hash tables. So did the 1ESS.
>
> Who sold them? Was Bill Gates the only
>prospective customer? What about the rest
>of us-- the peons? (Zorro will school you, if
>you refuse to respect us peons.)
>
Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard
of them.
>
>> >> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the
>> >> promotion.
>
>> > That's why you'll never become world champ.
>> >You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... .
>
>> Never aspired to be world champ.
>
> That's what they all say, /after/ they realize
>how pointless it would be to try. Unlike you,
>I readily admit that I mulled it over a time or
>two; but after I got scholars-mated a couple
>of times by nerdy-looking kids who screamed
>"CHECK!" so the whole world knew I got
>crushed, I reconsidered. (Besides, how was
>I supposed to get past Bobby Fischer, who
>was expected to come back out of retirement
>at any moment?)
Getting regular board beat-downs from my brothers made me find other
avenues. Funny, I taught my cousin to play chess. I was 9, he was 10.
He was beating me 5 minutes later. I think I'm not good stategically.
>
>
>> Again, do you have a point, other than contradiction? Anything
>> constructive to add perhaps?
>
> Yes. I would like to add that you have failed
>to respond to your horrific blunder just below:
>
>
>> >> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use
>> >> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the
>> >> best-looking lines first.
>
> The Guest revealed that you were just lost
>in space here-- what do you have to say for
>your arrogant, snotty, wrong self?
I shorted searching for moves to search. Mea cupla already.
>
>
>> >> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
>> >> >> program can be made without sorting.
>
>> > That was /your idea/, not mine.
>
>> No, your idea. Your idea because you said it's possible to write a
>> program without using existing strategies.
>
> Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a
>/pattern/ here?
You didn't say:
With the amazing speed of todays computers,
perhaps a decent chess program can be made
without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other
chess-centric programming techniques.
I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game
theory 101, and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so
chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down
the programming pike in the last 15-20 years.
>
>
>> > Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search
>> >was a good one, except that it is even more crucial
>> >for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search
>> >first.
>
>> WTF is quiessence?
>
> It is the way we misspell the fancy word for "quiet
>position" where I come from (as I already indicated).
>Are you always this slow?
>
>
>> Do you mean quiescence?
>
> You tell me, Mr. Know-it-all No-help.
>
>
>> I still contend fix the strategy
>
> Shift duly noted. Your original position was
>that Sanny needed to increase *speed*.
No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in
speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint.
>
>
>> If you have a barge cobbled together with
>> garbage, it ain't going to be graceful, no matter how much chrome you
>> put on it.
>
> Agreed. I think the results indicate that
>no matter how fast or slow, the tactics are
>being seriously mishandled, and my guess
>is that his programmers don't know about
>the importance of "quiet positions" and
>their relationship to calculating tactics in
>chess. I have consistently pounded the
>table, screaming at the top of my lungs
>that I can not and will not be beaten by a
>player/program which simply hangs its
>pieces to me! (Well, not often, anyway.)
I pretty much agree, but as a programmer.
My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is
that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control.
He needs to start there. Not hard.
Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend
most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang
your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would
suck.
>
> I reject the idea -- regardless of source --
>that merely speeding things up will solve
>this problem, because even at the lower
>levels it should not exist-- yet it does.
A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That
means more time to do more productive things.
From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it
craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves,
and then do a really hideous one.
What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of
bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them,
you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go
wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising
instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I
didn't think I was being that vague.
>
> To simplify, calculating tactics correctly
>is more important than strategy, and this
>ought to be priority number one (apart from
>playing chess /in accordance with the
>rules/).
Agreed. To simplify it more, he needs to identify the best move and
make it. Opening books are for strategy. Endgame bases are strategy.
>
> Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like
>say, a link to a Web site which explains
>precisely how it is done. Or are you just
>going to continue your jabbering?
If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own
research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it
seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to
read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the
game programming books out there will give you info.
>
> I have (repeatedly) admitted not knowing
>enough about this to explain how it is done.
>You obviously also know very little (but you
>might know someone, who knows someone,
>who knows how it is done). ;>D
Never said I know how to write a chess program, but I know something
about game theory.
I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit,
mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now.
And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that
says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no
predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna
write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:37:43
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sanny
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> � Understood. �However, there is a titanic
>> difference between "good versus bad" moves
>> and evaluating what is or is not legal.
>>
>> � If there are but *two* legal moves, both a
>> human player and achessengine might
>> crank away at them, evaluating deeply and
>> considering which is better. �But when there
>> is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and
>> whiling away of hours in the world cannot
>> ever change that fact. �To do so would
>
>Yes, now I understand what you mean. You were not talking abt weak
>moves but legal moves.
>
>So this have been corrected now. If there is "only 1 legal move" it
>will play that move in just 1 second instead of thinking for 3-5 min.
>
>That will save a lot of players time when there is only one legal move
>and he is playing with Master / Advance Level.
>
>In a game such moves occur only 1/2/3 times. But that will save
>GetClubs time in every game.
>
>Play a few game and let me know, When there is (only one legal move )
>if its plays legal moves in 1 second or not.
>
>The programmer has corrected it. But not yet tested it. That you have
>to find by playing a few games.
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
>And by seeing recorded games we can see if it is playing such moves
>instantaniously or not.
>
>That was a very good advice.
>
>Now in every game 1-2 min will be saved.
>
>Bye
>Sanny
Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning.
The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an
exception.
I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
useful knowledge in either.
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 14:15:11
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or
> programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained
> useful knowledge in either.
That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or
persuade him to learn anything.
Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 22:05:33
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> > >> I still contend fix the strategy
>
> > > =A0Shift duly noted. =A0Your original position was
> > >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*.
>
> > No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in
> > speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint.
>
> =A0 Okay, more efficient is good. =A0But hisGetClub
> program has some fundamental problem which
> goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact
> miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't
> bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will
> help.
Have you played a game recently? Last 4 days the game wasagain
improved with lots of new things.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Have a game and tell me how you face it.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 20:08:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 5, 6:22 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard
> of them.
I was talking about /who sold their chess
machines/programs/ (i.e. the chess connection).
> > The Guest revealed that you were just lost
> >in space here-- what do you have to say for
> >your arrogant, snotty, wrong self?
> I shorted searching for moves to search.
Whatever that means. (Lots of people
here have trouble admitting they have no
clue what they rant about).
> > Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a
> >/pattern/ here?
>
> You didn't say:
>
> With the amazing speed of todays computers,
> perhaps a decent chess program can be made
> without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other
> chess-centric programming techniques.
>
> I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game
> theory 101
You're splitting hairs; game theory/chess
game theory are the same thing, to me (i.e.
chess is a game).
I could have put in a hyphen like this, to
clarify my meaning: without fancy-pruners,
or maybe italics, like so: without /fancy/
pruners, since I was not discussing the
most elementary type, which merely cuts
out the obvious chunks of fat.
> and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so
> chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down
> the programming pike in the last 15-20 years.
They weren't used by the earliest chess
programmers who actually sold their wares
to the public. The "experts" used to write
about how it was impractical to implement
hash-tables, due to limitations of memory,
etc.
> >> I still contend fix the strategy
>
> > Shift duly noted. Your original position was
> >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*.
>
> No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in
> speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint.
Okay, more efficient is good. But his GetClub
program has some fundamental problem which
goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact
miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't
bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will
help.
> I pretty much agree, but as a programmer.
There are worse things; lawyers, politicians,
slime, scum, fungi, lice-- but I keep repeating
myself.
> My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is
> that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control.
> He needs to start there. Not hard.
There are in fact some scoring issues-- such
as keeping its King near the corner in the
endgame. But this is not a big issue if the
program could only trounce humans at tactics,
before the endgame.
> Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend
> most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang
> your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would
> suck.
I myself have adopted a strategy in which
I allocate my OTB thinking time toward the
early part of the game, hoping to obtain a
winning position instead of a losing one.
Sanny's program does not compete in such
events; he decides the thinking times, along
with everything else (sometimes including
who wins). But people would (once again)
begin to complain, if he were to allocate a
lot more time.
> > I reject the idea -- regardless of source --
> >that merely speeding things up will solve
> >this problem, because even at the lower
> >levels it should not exist-- yet it does.
> A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That
> means more time to do more productive things.
True. But he still has to write the code
so that the program /will/ do those things.
> From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it
> craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves,
> and then do a really hideous one.
> What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of
> bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them,
> you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go
> wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising
> instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I
> didn't think I was being that vague.
It seems to me that you must never have
played the program; how else could you
believe that widening the search will have
any great impact? You do not seem to
understand just how messed up are the
program's calculation of /basic tactics/.
> > To simplify, calculating tactics correctly
> >is more important than strategy, and this
> >ought to be priority number one (apart from
> >playing chess /in accordance with the
> >rules/).
> > Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like
> >say, a link to a Web site which explains
> >precisely how it is done. Or are you just
> >going to continue your jabbering?
> If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own
> research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it
> seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to
> read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the
> game programming books out there will give you info.
I suppose that "answers" my question above.
I think Sanny is hiring professional programmers
to write the code; if so, your suggestion-- for
them to read books -- is not going to be well
received, nor will it likely help.
> I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit,
> mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now.
> And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that
> says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no
> predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna
> write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming.
A look at Sanny's Web site reveals that his
programmers know how to write code. But
where they fall down is in knowing chess, and
in all those subtle areas of programming
which relate specifically to speed and
efficiency, which can yield very strong chess
moves; such speed and efficiency as is not
normally required for many business
programs, on modern hardware. These things
are what many chess programmers obsess
over, because they have a /need/ for speed.
-- help bot
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2008 23:29:35
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 5, 6:22 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard
>> of them.
>
> I was talking about /who sold their chess
>machines/programs/ (i.e. the chess connection).
>
I'm splitting hairs?
Bell might have used some of the lessons learned from chess to go into
the switching fabric. If they did that, they profited from it.
>
>> > The Guest revealed that you were just lost
>> >in space here-- what do you have to say for
>> >your arrogant, snotty, wrong self?
>
>> I shorted searching for moves to search.
>
> Whatever that means. (Lots of people
>here have trouble admitting they have no
>clue what they rant about).
Indeed.
>
>
>> > Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a
>> >/pattern/ here?
>>
>> You didn't say:
>>
>> With the amazing speed of todays computers,
>> perhaps a decent chess program can be made
>> without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other
>> chess-centric programming techniques.
>>
>> I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game
>> theory 101
>
> You're splitting hairs; game theory/chess
>game theory are the same thing, to me (i.e.
>chess is a game).
Game theory can be used in the routing of trains, or how to place
your whiskey casks in a warehouse to move them the least (and store
the most).
>
> I could have put in a hyphen like this, to
>clarify my meaning: without fancy-pruners,
>or maybe italics, like so: without /fancy/
>pruners, since I was not discussing the
>most elementary type, which merely cuts
>out the obvious chunks of fat.
I'm bad for arguing sematics however ;)
>
>
>> and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so
>> chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down
>> the programming pike in the last 15-20 years.
>
> They weren't used by the earliest chess
>programmers who actually sold their wares
>to the public. The "experts" used to write
>about how it was impractical to implement
>hash-tables, due to limitations of memory,
>etc.
>
>
>> >> I still contend fix the strategy
>>
>> > Shift duly noted. Your original position was
>> >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*.
>>
>> No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in
>> speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint.
>
> Okay, more efficient is good. But his GetClub
>program has some fundamental problem which
>goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact
>miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't
>bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will
>help.
>
>
>> I pretty much agree, but as a programmer.
>
> There are worse things; lawyers, politicians,
>slime, scum, fungi, lice-- but I keep repeating
>myself.
Hey, at least I have a job, unlike a few chess players...
>
>
>> My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is
>> that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control.
>> He needs to start there. Not hard.
>
> There are in fact some scoring issues-- such
>as keeping its King near the corner in the
>endgame. But this is not a big issue if the
>program could only trounce humans at tactics,
>before the endgame.
If you're writing a chess program, and you give bonus points for the
position if the king is not in a corner.
>
>
>> Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend
>> most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang
>> your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would
>> suck.
>
> I myself have adopted a strategy in which
>I allocate my OTB thinking time toward the
>early part of the game, hoping to obtain a
>winning position instead of a losing one.
>Sanny's program does not compete in such
>events; he decides the thinking times, along
>with everything else (sometimes including
>who wins). But people would (once again)
>begin to complain, if he were to allocate a
>lot more time.
Exactly why you need to be efficient. But if you're expecting a minute
a move, and the program decides it needs to take 5, what do you expect
the person to do?
>
>
>> > I reject the idea -- regardless of source --
>> >that merely speeding things up will solve
>> >this problem, because even at the lower
>> >levels it should not exist-- yet it does.
>
>> A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That
>> means more time to do more productive things.
>
> True. But he still has to write the code
>so that the program /will/ do those things.
Do you think he does analysis? He got Rybka, but all he does is have
it play GC every few days, and posts the result here. He doesn't
analyze the games it plays. He /doesn't even know what's a legal
move/.
>
>
>> From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it
>> craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves,
>> and then do a really hideous one.
>> What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of
>> bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them,
>> you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go
>> wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising
>> instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I
>> didn't think I was being that vague.
>
> It seems to me that you must never have
>played the program; how else could you
>believe that widening the search will have
>any great impact? You do not seem to
>understand just how messed up are the
>program's calculation of /basic tactics/.
You're talking about a chess program in the manner of chess, and I'm
trying to put a programming spin on it. Basically a chess program:
1) Determines its' current position
2) Looks at the possible moves (and counter-moves, several moves ahead
if possible)
3) And chooses the best move
Tactics is (3). (2) and (3) need to happen concurrently.
I've played it twice, and have better things to do than beta test.
I'll play people on Pogo... better time controls.
>
>
>> > To simplify, calculating tactics correctly
>> >is more important than strategy, and this
>> >ought to be priority number one (apart from
>> >playing chess /in accordance with the
>> >rules/).
>
>
>> > Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like
>> >say, a link to a Web site which explains
>> >precisely how it is done. Or are you just
>> >going to continue your jabbering?
>
>> If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own
>> research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it
>> seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to
>> read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the
>> game programming books out there will give you info.
>
> I suppose that "answers" my question above.
>I think Sanny is hiring professional programmers
>to write the code; if so, your suggestion-- for
>them to read books -- is not going to be well
>received, nor will it likely help.
Do I care, really? They can get offended by my comment, or they can
do something about it. I'd prefer if they did the latter. I don't
think it's the work of professional programmers.
When I work in a particular field, it's in my best interest to
figure out what they do, and what the rules are. I don't mind reading
to get the job done... Otherwise I'd be harping about how I took
FORTRAN IV in college, like some people.
>
>
>> I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit,
>> mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now.
>> And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that
>> says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no
>> predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna
>> write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming.
>
> A look at Sanny's Web site reveals that his
>programmers know how to write code.
Not good code.
> But
>where they fall down is in knowing chess, and
>in all those subtle areas of programming
>which relate specifically to speed and
>efficiency, which can yield very strong chess
>moves; such speed and efficiency as is not
>normally required for many business
>programs, on modern hardware.
Efficiency is MUCH more imporant than speed. Neither really is
important in business.
If you're doing pure analysis, then you're probably going to want
speed.
>These things
>are what many chess programmers obsess
>over, because they have a /need/ for speed.
Are you a chess programmer?
I can tell you even if you have the fastest machine in the world, a
crappy program will still bring it to its' knees. More importantly is
what you do with it. I bet the Fidelity box would trounce GC.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 22:22:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 4 new Openings taught.
|
Sanny wrote:
> > > If you find any opening move missing let me know it.GetClubcan
> > > remember first four moves. So it plays opening moves in 0 seconds
> > > saving your time.
> > About that: when there is only one legal
> > move the program goes into a deep think,
> > as usual. But apart from figuring out that
> > there is one and only one *legal* move,
> > there's really nothing to think about, is
> > there? Just play the move on the board,
> > and crank away on the opponent's time.
> GetClub thinks when there is 1 forced move So that may be by thinking
> higher depth it may give a Gambit of Rook/ Queen to win the game?
If such a follow-up exists, it will still be there
after the (forced) only-legal-move is played and
the opponent begins thinking.
> Or may be some move may be found which draws the game by repetitive
> moves.
This could pose a technical problem.
> As many times some good move may look wrong at lower depth but only
> when depth of search is increased we can see it's benefits.
After the move is executed on the board, the
program ought to be able to "see" a bit deeper
into the subsequent position.
> I see in many games Zrbediah gives away its bishop/ Rook to win the
> game So for that reasion all moves must be evaluated. Even if they are
> giving loss at lower depth.
Understood. However, there is a titanic
difference between "good versus bad" moves
and evaluating what is or is not legal.
If there are but *two* legal moves, both a
human player and a chess engine might
crank away at them, evaluating deeply and
considering which is better. But when there
is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and
whiling away of hours in the world cannot
ever change that fact. To do so would
require changing the rules of the game-- an
act best reserved for execution in between
matches or tourneys.
A simple way to handle this is to churn
out a list of all possible moves, then chop
off the illegal ones, thus creating a list of
only the *legal* moves. Now, before the
next step (whatever it may be), you can
look to see if the list of *legal* moves you
just created has only one element, and if
so, designate it as the "best" move (you
can't be wrong about this) and play it on
the board (or check to see if a draw
condition exists, etc.).
------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you have made a million more
of your famous "improvements", and are
now ready for a $100,000 match against
team Rybka. You could "pocket" the
thinking time saved here and use it on the
next move-- a move where you actually
have a choice of legal moves. In most
cases, the time controls are not such
that moving immediately like this just
throws away time you otherwise could
have utilized constructively. In real
tournaments and matches, the time
limits allot a chunk of time, to be used
as the program sees fit over the course
of a set number of moves. Under such
real-world conditions, your policy of
utilizing the full time limit on a *forced*
move would be a handicap. If I were the
computer operator for GetClub -- entitled
to fully half the purse if we won -- and
this situation occurred (after say, Q-d8+),
I would go ahead and play the only-legal-
move (...Kxd8) immediately and then sit
back and watch Rybka spit out her reply
(Bg5 double-check). Then I would try
asking for a delay or rescheduling of
(...Ke8, forced) some sort, and if that did
not work, I would be forced to use Plan B,
in which I activate a powerful magnet to
avoid having to face (Rd8++) reality. The
magnet would destroy both computers,
and every cellphone and then I would set
off a hidden bomb, destroying all
evidence that we had lost or even been
stupid enough to play such a match.
Anyway, it was just an idea.
-- helpful bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 17:13:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> Subroutine is an interesting choice of term. So basic.
BASIC? Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.
It was my third language-- after FORTRAN IV and RPG
(Before your time, sonny.)
> Hmm. I'm 41, been in the business since I've been 19, and know hash
> tables were in chess programs in the 80's.
The late '80s, perhaps. But that was hardly the
beginning. Can you remember -- were you even
involved then -- when chess programs had none?
> > Wrong. A pawn can have anywhere from
> >zero legal moves all the way up to twelve,
> >depending on the position of course.
> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the
> promotion.
That's why you'll never become world champ.
You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... .
> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use
> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the
> best-looking lines first.
> What's your point?
I haven't got one. The Wizard said I must first
bring him the broom of the wicked witch of the
west-- than I can get it.
> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
> >> program can be made without sorting
That was /your idea/, not mine.
> >Try this link:http://www.gorillatrade.com
> And the point is... what, why don't they just have a mutual fund?
Sorry-- my mistake. I had assumed they would
have a pic of the Monkeys' singer "Davy" on their
Web page, just as in all their ads. As they didn't,
you -- as silly as you are -- probably got confused
by the "gorilla" and "monkey" similarities, thinking
they were the same species. You are probably
too young to even remember them-- the Monkeys
I mean.
Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search
was a good one, except that it is even more crucial
for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search
first. I am still beating up on his program in simple
tactical skirmishes-- which indicates to me that it
is not calculating them properly (whether looking
ahead deeply or not). Speeding things up won't
help here, any more than say, eating donuts more
quickly will help unclog one's arteries.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 13:41:57
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:13:08 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Subroutine is an interesting choice of term. So basic.
>
> BASIC? Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.
>It was my third language-- after FORTRAN IV and RPG
>(Before your time, sonny.)
Good, you can look up acronyms. What, next you'll be telling me you
had a chess program on the analytical engine.
>
>
>> Hmm. I'm 41, been in the business since I've been 19, and know hash
>> tables were in chess programs in the 80's.
>
> The late '80s, perhaps. But that was hardly the
>beginning. Can you remember -- were you even
>involved then -- when chess programs had none?
No, the early 80's.
And I'll reiterate, UNIX used hash tables. So did the 1ESS. Hmm... who
were them guys? They did a chess program as well. I'd mention it, but
it's a pretty straight giveaway. Did pretty well in the '82 ACM
tourney.
>
>
>> > Wrong. A pawn can have anywhere from
>> >zero legal moves all the way up to twelve,
>> >depending on the position of course.
>
>> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the
>> promotion.
>
> That's why you'll never become world champ.
>You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... .
Never aspired to be world champ. Personally, I consider it good
business when my name doesn't come up, because it generally means
there ain't cuss words behind it.
Again, do you have a point, other than contradiction? Anything
constructive to add perhaps?
>
>
>> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use
>> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the
>> best-looking lines first.
>> What's your point?
>
> I haven't got one. The Wizard said I must first
>bring him the broom of the wicked witch of the
>west-- than I can get it.
>
>
>> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
>> >> program can be made without sorting
>
> That was /your idea/, not mine.
No, your idea. Your idea because you said it's possible to write a
program without using existing strategies.
>
>
>> >Try this link:http://www.gorillatrade.com
>
>> And the point is... what, why don't they just have a mutual fund?
>
> Sorry-- my mistake. I had assumed they would
>have a pic of the Monkeys' singer "Davy" on their
>Web page, just as in all their ads. As they didn't,
>you -- as silly as you are -- probably got confused
>by the "gorilla" and "monkey" similarities, thinking
>they were the same species. You are probably
>too young to even remember them-- the Monkeys
>I mean.
*sigh*
>
> Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search
>was a good one, except that it is even more crucial
>for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search
>first.
WTF is quiessence?
Do you mean quiescence?
Why would you search then anyway?
You don't search the same? Oh, you'll say it's different because you
don't know how long you have to search.
I still contend fix the strategy, then worry about the moving and
waiting to move stages. If you have a barge cobbled together with
garbage, it ain't going to be graceful, no matter how much chrome you
put on it.
> I am still beating up on his program in simple
>tactical skirmishes-- which indicates to me that it
>is not calculating them properly (whether looking
>ahead deeply or not). Speeding things up won't
>help here, any more than say, eating donuts more
>quickly will help unclog one's arteries.
I think we established that. A year ago. Hasn't changed.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 21:42:08
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: 4 new Openings taught.
|
> > If you find any opening move missing let me know it.GetClubcan
> > remember first four moves. So it plays opening moves in 0 seconds
> > saving your time.
>
> =A0 About that: when there is only one legal
> move the program goes into a deep think,
> as usual. =A0But apart from figuring out that
> there is one and only one *legal* move,
> there's really nothing to think about, is
> there? =A0Just play the move on the board,
> and crank away on the opponent's time.
GetClub thinks when there is 1 forced move So that may be by thinking
higher depth it may give a Gambit of Rook/ Queen to win the game?
Or may be some move may be found which draws the game by repetitive
moves.
As many times some good move may look wrong at lower depth but only
when depth of search is increased we can see it's benefits.
I see in many games Zrbediah gives away its bishop/ Rook to win the
game So for that reasion all moves must be evaluated. Even if they are
giving loss at lower depth.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 19:44:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 4 new Openings taught.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Today 4 new Openings were taught to GetClub Chess. So that it plays
> better against strong opponents.
> If you find any opening move missing let me know it. GetClub can
> remember first four moves. So it plays opening moves in 0 seconds
> saving your time.
About that: when there is only one legal
move the program goes into a deep think,
as usual. But apart from figuring out that
there is one and only one *legal* move,
there's really nothing to think about, is
there? Just play the move on the board,
and crank away on the opponent's time.
Not moving in this situation gives the
impression that the program is utterly
clueless about how to play chess.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 16:48:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 3, 4:48 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I think you're talking about selective search.
> > I've read that those guys "lost" in the end,
> > that the thuggish brute-forcers somehow
> > came to dominate the field.
>
> Today again the game was improved. Now you will face tough Challenge
> at GetClub.
>
> Even Easy level will play remarkably better.
Thank goodness you are able to (just barely)
keep up with my own amazing improvement in
chess! Most others would have fallen behind
long ago, but not you. By implementing all
these incredible improvements, you now stand
alone, perhaps somewhere in the vicinity of
4,000,000-5,000,000 FIDE.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sanny, in order to give most of us humans
a decent challenge, all you need to do is get
the tactics part right. Instead of worrying over
pruning techniques to deepen the search,
you should think about researching what is
called "quiessence", or quietness-- the point
where you can safely stop looking further
ahead and return the position score back
down the line to an earlier node or whatever.
In the 1980s, Fidelity Electronics had an
entire series of portable chess computers,
with *very limited* speeds and memory
capacities which effectively got this part
down pat, and it showed in both results and
quality of play. They were terrible in the
endgame because of a dramatic speed-up
in simpler positions -- they messed up the
handling of thinking time -- but otherwise, I
believe that if someone had one of these
old-fangled contraptions in working order,
they could defeat the GetClub program in
a set match. No hash-tables, no Pentium
speed, just proper handling of tactics, and
a simplistic approach to piece-development
and control of the center. Even in the late
endgame, where both GC and the Chess
Challenger-x are at their worst, Fidelity had
you beat, for their contraption would force
the enemy King to the edge of the board as
part of its "control the center" obsession.
We're talking something like maybe 2 mHz
or less-- a modern PC can run rings around
these old farts, while simultaneously
watching MTV and eating peanut butter
flavored Captain Crunch. Heck-- even my
graphics chip could beat one of those old
things at chess.
I wish I had the expertise to help you, but
I don't. All I can do is point out the facts
and recommend that you look into certain
key areas (i.e. tactics).
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 13:47:37
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 3, 4:48 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I think you're talking about selective search.
>> > I've read that those guys "lost" in the end,
>> > that the thuggish brute-forcers somehow
>> > came to dominate the field.
>>
>> Today again the game was improved. Now you will face tough Challenge
>> at GetClub.
>>
>> Even Easy level will play remarkably better.
>
> Thank goodness you are able to (just barely)
>keep up with my own amazing improvement in
>chess! Most others would have fallen behind
>long ago, but not you. By implementing all
>these incredible improvements, you now stand
>alone, perhaps somewhere in the vicinity of
>4,000,000-5,000,000 FIDE.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sanny, in order to give most of us humans
>a decent challenge, all you need to do is get
>the tactics part right. Instead of worrying over
>pruning techniques to deepen the search,
>you should think about researching what is
>called "quiessence", or quietness-- the point
>where you can safely stop looking further
>ahead and return the position score back
>down the line to an earlier node or whatever.
>
> In the 1980s, Fidelity Electronics had an
>entire series of portable chess computers,
>with *very limited* speeds and memory
>capacities which effectively got this part
>down pat, and it showed in both results and
>quality of play. They were terrible in the
>endgame because of a dramatic speed-up
>in simpler positions -- they messed up the
>handling of thinking time -- but otherwise, I
>believe that if someone had one of these
>old-fangled contraptions in working order,
>they could defeat the GetClub program in
>a set match. No hash-tables, no Pentium
>speed, just proper handling of tactics, and
>a simplistic approach to piece-development
>and control of the center. Even in the late
>endgame, where both GC and the Chess
>Challenger-x are at their worst, Fidelity had
>you beat, for their contraption would force
>the enemy King to the edge of the board as
>part of its "control the center" obsession.
Gee, but you forget the Atari 2600 chess program. It had 256 bytes of
RAM, and 2K. Advanced level it took 4 hours a move, but hey...
And you don't understand that to be tactically proficient you have to
understand the board. Score the board. Now, you can do that in an
O(2^n) fashion, or using some well-known memory efficient
constructions, cut that down to O(n log n).
>
> We're talking something like maybe 2 mHz
>or less-- a modern PC can run rings around
>these old farts, while simultaneously
>watching MTV and eating peanut butter
>flavored Captain Crunch. Heck-- even my
>graphics chip could beat one of those old
>things at chess.
>
> I wish I had the expertise to help you, but
>I don't. All I can do is point out the facts
>and recommend that you look into certain
>key areas (i.e. tactics).
>
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 13:13:04
From: Guest
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
"Patrick Volk" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), help bot
> Gee, but you forget the Atari 2600 chess program. It had 256 bytes of
> RAM, and 2K. Advanced level it took 4 hours a move, but hey...
Actually, it had 128 bytes of RAM and some registers it could use for
storage.
As for the chess program, there were several versions with various ROM
sizes. The shipping versions fit into the 4k of rom space, but the original
versions didn't, which is why Atari developed the bank switching methods.
As a side note, I briefly emailed with the author a few years back and he
said he no longer has his original source or development stuff. He lost it
in a fire years ago.
He also told me that he originally wrote it in FORTRAN on a time share
system.
I think the source for at least one version of the Atari chess program was
disassembled and recommented into readable format. So if you are interested
you can browse it. (I never got around to downloading it and looking at
it.)
> And you don't understand that to be tactically proficient you have to
> understand the board. Score the board. Now, you can do that in an
> O(2^n) fashion, or using some well-known memory efficient
> constructions, cut that down to O(n log n).
Score the board in what way?
Just examining the board etc. won't result in a O(n^2) growth. Or O(N log
n) growth, for that matter.
The search isn't O(n^2) or O(n log n) either.
Nothing in chess programming is O(n^2) or O(n log n), actually? (Unless you
are counting the sort routine that programmers use to sort the move
ordering. Which is irrelevant.)
So what do you mean here?
----== 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: 04 Jul 2008 19:01:21
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:13:04 -0500, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote:
>"Patrick Volk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), help bot
>> Gee, but you forget the Atari 2600 chess program. It had 256 bytes of
>> RAM, and 2K. Advanced level it took 4 hours a move, but hey...
>
>Actually, it had 128 bytes of RAM and some registers it could use for
>storage.
>
>As for the chess program, there were several versions with various ROM
>sizes. The shipping versions fit into the 4k of rom space, but the original
>versions didn't, which is why Atari developed the bank switching methods.
>
>As a side note, I briefly emailed with the author a few years back and he
>said he no longer has his original source or development stuff. He lost it
>in a fire years ago.
>
>He also told me that he originally wrote it in FORTRAN on a time share
>system.
>
>I think the source for at least one version of the Atari chess program was
>disassembled and recommented into readable format. So if you are interested
>you can browse it. (I never got around to downloading it and looking at
>it.)
It's been a while since I mucked with the Atari. I did have the chess
gave however.
>
>
>> And you don't understand that to be tactically proficient you have to
>> understand the board. Score the board. Now, you can do that in an
>> O(2^n) fashion, or using some well-known memory efficient
>> constructions, cut that down to O(n log n).
>
>Score the board in what way?
Ok, I should have went into more detail. Scoring the position should
be constant. The process of determining moves is on the exponential
side.
>
>Just examining the board etc. won't result in a O(n^2) growth. Or O(N log
>n) growth, for that matter.
>
>The search isn't O(n^2) or O(n log n) either.
>
>Nothing in chess programming is O(n^2) or O(n log n), actually? (Unless you
>are counting the sort routine that programmers use to sort the move
>ordering. Which is irrelevant.)
>
>So what do you mean here?
If you're going to say 2^n is different than 3^n (or x^n), fine. Let's
just call it exponential and get on with life. Probably closer to
superexponential, and again not for scoring but the move list (I used
the term of search too loosely).
Think Sanny is being efficient? That is the issue. Think help bot is
right when he says Sanny might stumble on to a good way of making a
chess engine disregarding what is known about chess engines?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----== 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: 03 Jul 2008 01:48:41
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> =A0 I think you're talking about selective search.
> I've read that those guys "lost" in the end,
> that the thuggish brute-forcers somehow
> came to dominate the field.
Today again the game was improved. Now you will face tough Challenge
at GetClub.
Even Easy level will play remarkably better.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 21:20:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 2, 11:29 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> When you write a chess program, I think it's a pretty fair statement
> that you have to be knowledgeable in both fields, or at least know
> someone.
In reality, one can simply find a subroutine
which generates all legal moves from a
given position and "stick it in". That is what
I would do, so I could focus on other things.
You may not know this, but Sanny got
stuck there-- for a long, long time; in fact he
still hides the program's illegal moves.
> Hate to burst your bubble, but pruners and hash tables are hardly
> chess-centric programming techniques.
You must be a very young bot. In my day,
they had no hash-tables whatever, and it was
a big improvement when it finally came along.
The pruners have also improved dramatically
over time-- which is what I was referring to.
> The A-B table is straight out of
> game theory (which comes into more mundane things now such as search
> engines), and the hash table is pretty much used whenever you use any
> database (Apache uses them. Java has them
Nitwit! Those things did not exist when they
first started writing chess programs. Java?
Indians? You remind me of that punk kid who
writes about how inflation/stocks/home prices
are worse off than any time in the last couple
of years; hello! What's the big deal? Wake me
up when something /significant/ happens, like
we go back on the gold standard, or there's a
half-off cookie sale at Wal-mart!
> Why are they pretty standard in the chess game toolkit? Because
> chess has a massive amount of possible moves. Get 5-6 ply and your
> move set is at least in the billions. Every pieces adds at least an
> order of magnitude. A queen for example can have up to 28 different
> places it can move (a knight or king 8, a bishop/rook 14, and even a
> pawn has 4 possible moves).
Wrong. A pawn can have anywhere from
zero legal moves all the way up to twelve,
depending on the position of course.
> If you notice, every respectable chess program scores the position.
> Why? Because that score is used for A-B pruning. Basically, you don't
> trace down the less-than-favorible lines (basically, this determines
> the breadth. Depth is difficulty). Sure, you can put your queen next
> to your opponents' pawn to be taken in the next half ply, but if you
> have better moves, do you really want to analyze the permutations of
> that?
I think you're talking about selective search.
I've read that those guys "lost" in the end,
that the thuggish brute-forcers somehow
came to dominate the field.
> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
> program can be made without sorting, I would have to say it's possible
> a roomful of monkeys can write Shakepeare. Possible, but EXTREMELY
> unlikely.
That's because no one has bothered to teach
them to write; you aren't even giving the poor
monkeys half a chance; it's obvious you are
unfamiliar with evolution. The fact is, even you
cannot write Shakespeare, so why are you
attacking the Monkeys? Giving them funny
looks? The fact remains they are too busy
singing, to put anybody down (unlike you).
Try this link: http://www.gorillatrade.com
> The fact that such things didn't occur to Sanny very much implies
> that his code is written as a journey. A journey that burns bridges.
> It's one thing to write a chess program, and not know one of the
> domains. It's either arrogant or ignorant to not know either.
I don't think you are aware that Sanny, so
he tells us, does not write the code himself.
He presumably pays some unknown
programmer or programmers to try to
implement his many "suggestions" for
improvements, and the result indicates an
unfamiliarity with chess-- even the basic
rules of the game. So, far from being a
poor programmer, Sanny is in reality not
a programmer at all.
> I'm not so sure Sanny would pass a Turing test at this point... If
> nothing else, he's optimistic. His website about management and stuff
> gave me a chuckle.
> Kind of reminds me of my 20's,
You're not still a teenager?
> where a bunch of us would sit around,
> and talk of starting up a company. But none of us really had an idea
> on what we wanted to do. That's where a plan comes in.
Sanny has sprung up at a time when Vishy
Anand has taken the world championship
title-- which may or may not relate to his
particular interest in chess. At a time when
Sam Sloan keeps screaming that the USCF
is "losing millions", it is funny to think that
/compared to them/, Sanny is likely millions
of rupees in the black, in spite of the quality
issues of his chess program.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 01:17:55
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> I've played it twice, and have better things to do than beta test.
> I'll play people on Pogo... better time controls.
Play again, As the game was improved today and it will play with
double strength now.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
What is your rating? can you win the easy level now? I think Easy will
be very tough even for Help Bot to beat. But I find Help Bot always
get some way to win even after the game is improved.
It means Help Bot uses only partial energy to win and whenever
improvement is done he increases his strength to match the GetClub
level.
But this time it will be very hard to win for Help Bot.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2008 21:03:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Jul 6, 11:29 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You're splitting hairs; game theory/chess
> >game theory are the same thing, to me (i.e.
> >chess is a game).
>
> Game theory can be used in the routing of trains, or how to place
> your whiskey casks in a warehouse to move them the least (and store
> the most).
So then, whiskey is the reason? That explains
a lot. : >D
> Exactly why you need to be efficient. But if you're expecting a minute
> a move, and the program decides it needs to take 5, what do you expect
> the person to do?
The funny thing is, Sanny has just improved
the time management of his program just as
you say; it now allocates more time to the
tougher positions, and less to easier ones.
But this in no way aids in overcoming the
primary reason it loses to me or anyone
else (tactical errors).
> I've played it twice, and have better things to do than beta test.
> I'll play people on Pogo... better time controls.
Well then, that makes you quite the expert.
> When I work in a particular field, it's in my best interest to
> figure out what they do, and what the rules are. I don't mind reading
> to get the job done... Otherwise I'd be harping about how I took
> FORTRAN IV in college, like some people.
Wrong yet again. (I took it in high school.)
This pattern keeps repeating.
> Are you a chess programmer?
Can you read? I have written here over
and over and over that I wish I could help
Sanny with this, but I cannot... because___?
(Hint: it's not because I'm an arrogant
little snot like you.)
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 12:54:16
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:20:15 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 2, 11:29 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> When you write a chess program, I think it's a pretty fair statement
>> that you have to be knowledgeable in both fields, or at least know
>> someone.
>
> In reality, one can simply find a subroutine
>which generates all legal moves from a
>given position and "stick it in". That is what
>I would do, so I could focus on other things.
> You may not know this, but Sanny got
>stuck there-- for a long, long time; in fact he
>still hides the program's illegal moves.
Subroutine is an interesting choice of term. So basic.
>
>
>> Hate to burst your bubble, but pruners and hash tables are hardly
>> chess-centric programming techniques.
>
> You must be a very young bot. In my day,
>they had no hash-tables whatever, and it was
>a big improvement when it finally came along.
>The pruners have also improved dramatically
>over time-- which is what I was referring to.
Hmm. I'm 41, been in the business since I've been 19, and know hash
tables were in chess programs in the 80's.
>
>
>> The A-B table is straight out of
>> game theory (which comes into more mundane things now such as search
>> engines), and the hash table is pretty much used whenever you use any
>> database (Apache uses them. Java has them
>
> Nitwit! Those things did not exist when they
>first started writing chess programs. Java?
>Indians? You remind me of that punk kid who
>writes about how inflation/stocks/home prices
>are worse off than any time in the last couple
>of years; hello! What's the big deal? Wake me
>up when something /significant/ happens, like
>we go back on the gold standard, or there's a
>half-off cookie sale at Wal-mart!
Sure, I'm a nitwit. Whatever you say, sparky. Hash tables were part
of the original Unix implementation.
Guess you like linear or exponential algorithms. Logarithmic
algorithms are too new-age... lol.
>
>
>> Why are they pretty standard in the chess game toolkit? Because
>> chess has a massive amount of possible moves. Get 5-6 ply and your
>> move set is at least in the billions. Every pieces adds at least an
>> order of magnitude. A queen for example can have up to 28 different
>> places it can move (a knight or king 8, a bishop/rook 14, and even a
>> pawn has 4 possible moves).
>
> Wrong. A pawn can have anywhere from
>zero legal moves all the way up to twelve,
>depending on the position of course.
Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the
promotion.
Given that Sanny still has illegal moves, I'd say he has an issue with
this. Which was the point.
>
>
>> If you notice, every respectable chess program scores the position.
>> Why? Because that score is used for A-B pruning. Basically, you don't
>> trace down the less-than-favorible lines (basically, this determines
>> the breadth. Depth is difficulty). Sure, you can put your queen next
>> to your opponents' pawn to be taken in the next half ply, but if you
>> have better moves, do you really want to analyze the permutations of
>> that?
>
> I think you're talking about selective search.
>I've read that those guys "lost" in the end,
>that the thuggish brute-forcers somehow
>came to dominate the field.
A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use
some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the
best-looking lines first.
What's your point?
>
>
>> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess
>> program can be made without sorting, I would have to say it's possible
>> a roomful of monkeys can write Shakepeare. Possible, but EXTREMELY
>> unlikely.
>
> That's because no one has bothered to teach
>them to write; you aren't even giving the poor
>monkeys half a chance; it's obvious you are
>unfamiliar with evolution. The fact is, even you
>cannot write Shakespeare, so why are you
>attacking the Monkeys? Giving them funny
>looks? The fact remains they are too busy
>singing, to put anybody down (unlike you).
Sigh.... You never read Gamow. 1, 2, 3... Infinity is a pretty good
book, dare I say entertaining for programmers, and essential for
mathematicians.
>
>Try this link: http://www.gorillatrade.com
And the point is... what, why don't they just have a mutual fund?
>
>
>> The fact that such things didn't occur to Sanny very much implies
>> that his code is written as a journey. A journey that burns bridges.
>> It's one thing to write a chess program, and not know one of the
>> domains. It's either arrogant or ignorant to not know either.
>
> I don't think you are aware that Sanny, so
>he tells us, does not write the code himself.
He's familiar with it.
>
> He presumably pays some unknown
>programmer or programmers to try to
>implement his many "suggestions" for
>improvements, and the result indicates an
>unfamiliarity with chess-- even the basic
>rules of the game. So, far from being a
>poor programmer, Sanny is in reality not
>a programmer at all.
Whatever.
>
>
>> I'm not so sure Sanny would pass a Turing test at this point... If
>> nothing else, he's optimistic. His website about management and stuff
>> gave me a chuckle.
>> Kind of reminds me of my 20's,
>
> You're not still a teenager?
>
>
>> where a bunch of us would sit around,
>> and talk of starting up a company. But none of us really had an idea
>> on what we wanted to do. That's where a plan comes in.
>
> Sanny has sprung up at a time when Vishy
>Anand has taken the world championship
>title-- which may or may not relate to his
>particular interest in chess. At a time when
>Sam Sloan keeps screaming that the USCF
>is "losing millions", it is funny to think that
>/compared to them/, Sanny is likely millions
>of rupees in the black, in spite of the quality
>issues of his chess program.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 07:05:52
From: Sanny
Subject: 4 new Openings taught.
|
Today 4 new Openings were taught to GetClub Chess. So that it plays
better against strong opponents.
If you find any opening move missing let me know it. GetClub can
remember first four moves. So it plays opening moves in 0 seconds
saving your time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 01:51:20
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more.
|
> Do you think you're attracting top-tier chess players with your
> program?
Not many, But now the Program plays very decently so even good players
will face the challenge.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2008 04:00:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Get Club beaten like carrots
|
> =A0 Nevertheless, it seems to get the tactics
> right up to a certain, albeit very shallow,
> depth. =A0Note how Zeb not only uses a much
> stronger engine, but he also takes White--
> as if to enjoy watching the carnage. =A0In the
> one game in which I let another engine
> duke it out with GC, I offered up QN odds
> as best I could (i.e. N-a3, N-b5, N-a7) and
> it was a reasonably interesting game for a
> while.
>
Game was improved today taking your advices. Thanks a lot for such
valuable information.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2008 01:23:57
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
> =A0 Sanny's estimates are always too close
> together; he likes the round number 100,
> and wishes his top levels to be equal to or
> higher than the braggers here in rgc. =A0But
> his program's results tell a very different
> story. =A0Because they don't like Sanny, the
> folks around here are highly motivated to
> win. =A0Even so, his program occasionally
> scores a victory or two, when the position
> is "just right" for his engine to not self-
> destruct. =A0It's greatest weakness is in the
> endgame; however...
Today again the game was improved a bit. So you will face a stronger
opponent now.
Play a game with Normal Level and tell me if you see the difference.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 11:53:07
From:
Subject: Re: Off topic spam
|
> Only 3 players are able to win the higher Levels.
>
> 1. Help Bot - Beginner, Easy, Normal
> 2. Bonsai - Beginner, Easy, Normal
> 3. Zebediah Beginner, Easy, Normal, and Master and also Advance.
Don't you mean that only those 3 are willing to waste their time
playing
what ammounts to postal chess vs your very weak engine? Even your
very own site shows that your "Advanced" mode which takes hours per
move is +2 -48 and yet you assign it a "2400 rating on some imaginary
Sanny scale.
Although I know the effort will be fruitless I will offer two more
tidbits of
wisdom for you.
1) Virtually every program I have seen, including yours, has roughly
the
same strength at every time control. This presumes, of course, that
the
human is playing under the same time constraints. If anything, most of
them seem stronger to me at fast time controls.
2) The length of a games in moves is not even close to being an
accurate
gauge of the relative strength of the players. This tends to be more a
matter of style then strength.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 02:39:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Off topic spam
|
On Jun 27, 3:54 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > How can the so-called "advance" level, rumored to take as long as 6
> > hours for a move, play such a tactically terrible game as the one
> > above?
Actually, that game was a *strategical* crush;
no amount of number-crunching would have
saved Black from doom.
> Play with Master Level and see for yourself how it crushes you.
>
> Only 3 players are able to win the higher Levels.
>
> 1. Help Bot - Beginner, Easy, Normal
And Master, and Advance, though I may
die of old age.
> 2. Bonsai - Beginner, Easy, Normal
Bonsai's overall record is shown as 70--4;
maybe he just doesn't have the patience to
play the higher levels.
> 3. Zebediah Beginner, Easy, Normal, and Master and also Advance.
Zeb is obviously using another chess engine;
you're never going to be able to beat him.
> Rest other players cannot face even the Beginner Level..
>
> Beginner: 1800
> Easy: 1900
> Normal: 2000
> Master: 2100
> Advance: 2200
In the very next post in this thread, the
Advance level somehow miraculously jumps
to "2300+".
All these numbers are way too high. Look
at my most recent games-- a near-miniature
against the Normal level, demonstrating its
many inherent flaws:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21181&game=Chess
Another win where, this time, the program
does not merely self-destruct on its own:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21208&game=Chess
A tough fight against the *Advance* level,
in which the program managed to land a
decisive tactical blow for once, but then
botched the endgame terribly:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM20686&game=Chess
In view of all this, I think the ratings of
1800--2300+ are way out of whack; just
chop off around 200 points or so from
those outlandish numbers:
Beginner: 1400
Easy: 1600
Normal: 1750
Master: 1900
Advance: 2000
Better still, get this thing going on FICS,
and let's stop with all the guessing games.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 00:55:28
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Zebediah made the King dance from e8-a1.
|
> > But atlast has to surrender.
>
> Sanny, what's GM Atlast's rating?
I do not know may be 2300+. As Advance level plays as good as 2300+
rated player.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 00:54:22
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Off topic spam
|
> How can the so-called "advance" level, rumored to take as long as 6
> hours for a move, play such a tactically terrible game as the one
> above?
Play with Master Level and see for yourself how it crushes you.
Only 3 players are able to win the higher Levels.
1. Help Bot - Beginner, Easy, Normal
2. Bonsai - Beginner, Easy, Normal
3. Zebediah Beginner, Easy, Normal, and Master and also Advance.
Rest other players cannot face even the Beginner Level..
Beginner: 1800
Easy: 1900
Normal: 2000
Master: 2100
Advance: 2200
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 00:09:10
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Zebediah made the King dance from e8-a1.
|
On Jun 26, 9:28 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> But atlast has to surrender.
Sanny, what's GM Atlast's rating?
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 16:15:46
From: help bot
Subject: Get Club beaten like carrots
|
On Jun 26, 2:38 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> How can the so-called "advance" level, rumored to take as long as 6
> hours for a move, play such a tactically terrible game as the one
> above?
>
> Based on this game can we even say that advance level is as good as
> 1800 ELO?
It is impossible to estimate accurately, since
we don't even know which engine Zeb is using.
The best way to get a reliable estimate is to
have the GetClub program play a number of
different opponents near its own level, some
games with White, some with Black, and in
several different openings.
A few obvious flaws which seem to repeat
themselves quite frequently:
1) ...B-a6 (as in this game);
2) Premature Queen moves (such as 1. d4 Nf6,
2. Qd3);
3) Preferring moves which lead to the King
getting trapped in the center.
The program is still buggy. I had a game
recently where it was not my turn to move
and the program declared itself the winner
in a losing position! My GC rating took a
nasty hit, I expect.
In another game, I miniaturized it (more
or less, depending on how you define it) in
a dull, closed position where it crammed
its pieces into a corner away from its own
King.
Nevertheless, it seems to get the tactics
right up to a certain, albeit very shallow,
depth. Note how Zeb not only uses a much
stronger engine, but he also takes White--
as if to enjoy watching the carnage. In the
one game in which I let another engine
duke it out with GC, I offered up QN odds
as best I could (i.e. N-a3, N-b5, N-a7) and
it was a reasonably interesting game for a
while.
My guess is that if you lined up a bunch
of human players and randomly stuck GC
somewhere in the middle, nobody could
tell which patzer was which, assuming
they were all facing a commercial chess
engine. I still see folks who play there
/anonymously/ and then, if and when they
get lucky, come here to brag. But where
are the real-life Class-x players now? now
that the program is no longer somewhere
around 1000 USCF? And lest we forget,
there is no real time limit for the human
opponents; how many times I would
have lost OTB if it weren't for this built-in
"safety"!
Somebody really ought to help Sanny out
with getting him fixed up on ICS or FICS;
not merely /telling him how/ to do it, but
actually git 'er done, so we all can see the
objective results.
-- help bot
|
| |
How can the so-called "advance" level, rumored to take as long as 6
hours for a move, play such a tactically terrible game as the one
above?
Based on this game can we even say that advance level is as good as
1800 ELO?
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 10:21:47
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Off topic spam
|
On Jun 26, 9:53=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > What do you think Advance Level was wrong that it lost its Rook?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-F6MwlEsdAA
So that Storm take away the Rook?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 09:53:40
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Off topic spam
|
Sanny wrote:
>
> What do you think Advance Level was wrong that it lost its Rook?
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F6MwlEsdAA
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
|
