| |
Main
Date: 04 Sep 2008 01:07:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
Earlier the games at GetClub used to be very one sided. But now I find
It takes a lots of efforts and new tricks to win games at GetClub.
I was looking at last 10 games played at GetClub and found that there
was huge struggle to win the games.
Come at GetClub and enjoy playing Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
All recent games are quite interesting. I saw if the player is weak
how GetClub dismantels the opponents pieces.
And only very strong players or people using Chess Programs are able
to win the Beginner Level.
Last 2 weeks there was no improvement done as no new idea came to my
mind. Still GetClub is playing very good moves.
Beginner: 2200+
Easy: 2300+
Normal: 2400+
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 07:28:05
From: Jon D'Souza-Eva
Subject: Re: Your game was a good trap.
|
On 5 Sep, 06:46, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes in this game you win easily as the Beginner Level King was
> attacked by a combination of 2 Rooks and Queen forcing a mate.
>
> Play a new game and see how it =A0plays. As the game was improved a bit
> after this game played by you.
>
I played another game, with me Black this time:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM25987&game=3DChess
I'm afraid the program simply lacks a sufficient sense of danger. It
loses to techniques that worked against computers in the early 80s -
keep the position closed, slowly build up an attack, open up a line or
two and check, check, mate!
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 05:36:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
On Sep 5, 2:00=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Easy Level beat IVAN which is 1800+ rated program.
What about that game that was for a time
being played right here in rgc? I think one
of the two programs had a won game, but
in the endgame, showed itself to be quite
clueless and the two "operators", as it were,
negotiated the result between themselves
(as if that could tell us something).
> > =A0 This sounds as if Sanny has fixed the most
> > rudimentary problems he has been having
> > with simple tactics, and indeed, in trying to
> > recall /exactly how/ I took two pawns away
> > in my infamous Alekhine's Defense game, I
> > came up blank. =A0I must have wrested them
> > in some unclear fashion, rather than just
> > check-and-grab, as so often happened
> > earlier.
>
> So you found the difference.
>
> Here is your game can you do a quick analysis of the game?
> White -- Black
> (normal) -- (help bot)
>
> 1. d2-d4{2} Ng8-f6{6}
> 2. c2-c4{0} g7-g6{4}
> 3. Nb1-c3{2} Bf8-g7{2}
> 4. e2-e4{0} Ke8-g8{4}
Note that here, I had no idea that I had
allowed p-e5, being somewhat asleep at
the wheel. (Normally, I prevent this sort
of thing by ...d6.)
> 5. e4-e5{92} Nf6-e8{18}
> 6. f2-f4{204} d7-d6{42}
> 7. Ng1-f3{330} d6-e5{156}
> 8. f4-e5{634} Bc8-g4{56}
> 9. Nc3-d5{432}
Computer analysis shows that this move
simply hangs a pawn! Now, it goes w/o
saying that I was bewildered and went my
own way.
> ... c7-c6{118}
> 10. Nd5-e3{164} Bg4-f3{36}
> 11. g2-f3{156}
Blithering idiocy! I had calculated some
follow-up with ...Qh4+, yet this is impossible
as my own e-pawn blocks the Queen. What
drug, what mental block is this, I know not!
> .... e7-e6{94}
> 12. Ne3-g4{156} h7-h5{60}
> 13. Ng4-f2{86} c6-c5{96}
Finally, the relative patzer, Rybka, and I
are agreed on a move.
> 14. d4-c5{150} Qd8-d1{40}
> 15. Nf2-d1{82} Bg7-e5{36}
> 16. Bf1-d3{510} Nb8-a6{120}
> 17. Bc1-h6{84} Ne8-g7{44}
> 18. c5-c6{178} b7-c6{90}
> 19. f3-f4{164} Na6-c5{86}
> 20. Bd3-f1{100} Be5-f6{42}
> 21. Bh6-g5{272} Bf6-g5{56}
> 22. f4-g5{110} a7-a5{48}
> 23. Ra1-b1{312} Ra8-b8{70}
> 24. h2-h3{310} Rf8-d8{34}
> 25. Rh1-h2{448} Ng7-f5{46}
> 26. Rb1-c1{138} Kg8-f8{104}
I note that following this, Rybka likes
to move the King back where to it came
from; perhaps my "idea" was misguided.
> 27. b2-b3{1282} a5-a4{44}
> 28. b3-a4{84} Nc5-a4{34}
> 29. Bf1-g2{224} c6-c5{52}
> 30. Bg2-c6{94} Rb8-b4{94}
If there was any doubt at all that I am the
reigning king of patzerdom, this move dispels
it once and for all. I missed p-a3 (blush).
> 31. a2-a3{112} Nf5-d4{234}
Now, Rybka says I could just hang the
Knight, eating pawns to my heart's content
with equal chances. This is a testament
to just how "bad" is the Bishop, and how
uncoordinated are White's Rooks.
> 32. a3-b4{176} Nd4-c6{12}
> 33. Rc1-a1{234} Na4-b6{70}
> 34. b4-c5{154} Nb6-c4{60}
> 35. Ra1-c1{212} Nc4-e5{24}
> 36. Ke1-f1{158} Ne5-d3{174}
> 37. Rc1-c3{272} Nd3-f4{198}
> 38. Nd1-f2{164} Rd8-d2{64}
The GetClub program has gotten itself
all tied up in knots here.
> 39. Rc3-c1{272} e6-e5{60}
> 40. Rh2-h1{1282} Rd2-a2{206}
> 41. Rc1-d1{244} Ra2-c2{64}
Where do Rooks belong? Behind passed
pawns! (Never mind that there should not
be a passed pawn; that it only exists due
to my utter incompetence, etc.)
> 42. Nf2-e4{88} Nc6-d4{100}
> 43. Ne4-f6{212} Kf8-e7{76}
> 44. Rd1-b1{340} Nd4-f5{986}
> 45. Rb1-b7{132} Ke7-d8{22}
> 46. Rb7-d7{80} Kd8-c8{184}
> 47. Kf1-e1{0} Nf4-g2{390}
> 48. Ke1-f1{0} Nf5-g3{168}
> 49. Kf1-g1{0} Ng2-e1{412}
> 50. Rd7-d3{0}
This game contained a lot of mistakes,
by both sides. For some reason, I feel
that I play much better as White-- there
is something magical about the ease of
White's development, or the way Black
struggles to (unsoundly) counterattack.
Lately, I've been taking the Black
pieces and facing off against the highest
level that does not simply "lock up" when
losing, and many of the games are long
and/or hard-fought. But some of the long
ones are easy wins for me, just tedious
and long-winded-- not unlike a typical
exchange with Dr. IMnes.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 00:25:22
From: Sanny
Subject: Rating changed with improvement. with Beginner 1500 -> 2200+
|
> If he believes that his program is of 2200 strength, he is delusional.
> (I'd suggest misinformed as an alternative but he's been corrected on
> this so many times.) =A0If he believes that his program's strength is
> constant and also continually increasing, he has no capability for
> rational thought. =A0If he does not believe these things that he parrots
> so often, he is a liar. =A0Take your pick.
No its not true. I will proove that I changed GetClub Ratings with
each improvements.
Here is what I get on Google search. I am writing Rating told by me
along with the link to verify my claims.
Sep 4, 2008 (Today) I told Beginner Rating as 2200+
On Aug 17, 2008 I told Beginner Rating =3D 2100.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/browse_frm/thread/4=
464d06f100f9a0d/30534ea0e04cfc3a?lnk=3Dst&q=3D2200#30534ea0e04cfc3a
On Jun 8, 2008 I told Beginner: 2000+
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/cb8f0=
f591f09c06e/5bee1ad22981fc0e?lnk=3Dst&q=3D2200#5bee1ad22981fc0e
On March 29, 2008 I told Beginner Rating as 1800
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/50837=
de638e1464b/6beceadc9f78b697?lnk=3Dst&q=3D2200#6beceadc9f78b697
On Nov 10, 2007, I told Beginner Rating is 1700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/9786d=
1a7499af105/df3c716ba79e30bc?lnk=3Dst&q=3D1800#df3c716ba79e30bc
On Aug 27, 2007, I told Beginner is 1600 Rated.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/browse_frm/thread/e=
a96734bdb9e80e5/277a3b7e896017e7?lnk=3Dst&q=3D1800#277a3b7e896017e7
On Aug 22, 2007, I told Beginner is 1500 Rated.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/browse_frm/thread/2=
ed536d19d333d82/bd170c5f4dd41949?lnk=3Dst&q=3D1800#bd170c5f4dd41949
So you can see How GetClub Rating was increased from 1500 initially to
2200+ now. And I have been consistent with the improvements.
So here I conclude. With the links above.
On Aug 22, 2007, I told Beginner is 1500 Rated.
On Aug 27, 2007, I told Beginner is 1600 Rated.
On Nov 10, 2007, I told Beginner Rating is 1700
On March 29, 2008 I told Beginner Rating as 1800
On Jun 8, 2008 I told Beginner: 2000+
On Aug 17, 2008 I told Beginner Rating =3D 2100.
Sep 4, 2008 I told Beginner Rating as 2200+
And I have also given the links to verify that I have earlier given
1500 rating to Beginner Level and slowly with improvements Beginner
now stands at 2200+.
So Current Rating of GetClub Levels are:
Beginner: 2200+
Easy: 2300+
Normal: 2400+
With +/- 100.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 23:00:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
> > > Earlier the games at GetClub used to be very one sided.
>
> =A0 This does not "square with" what Sanny has
> so often written in the past; previously, we
> have been told how new "improvements" made
> it difficult or impossible to deal with GC's fine
> play.
Earlier means 2 months back. For last 2 weeks there was no real
improvement as no new idea came to my mind.
> > > Last 2 weeks there was no improvement done as no new idea came to my
> > > mind. Still GetClub is playing very good moves.
>
> =A0 In fact, it is now dysfunctional, since log-on
> attempts just result in errors.
Are you unable to login? Just restart your computer and try again and
let me know if the problem persist.
> > No offense, but there is no way that the Beginner level of this
> > program is anywhere near 2200. Based on the game I played against it a
> > few days ago (http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM25780&game=3DC=
hess)
>
> =A0 Another error-- failure to load Java applet.
Try this link:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM25780&game=3DChess
> > I would say that it played at 1600 at most, but
> > perhaps without the very simply blunders that someone of that rating
> > might be expected to play.
Yes, now it do not do blunders as it used to earlier.
Easy Level beat IVAN which is 1800+ rated program.
> =A0 This sounds as if Sanny has fixed the most
> rudimentary problems he has been having
> with simple tactics, and indeed, in trying to
> recall /exactly how/ I took two pawns away
> in my infamous Alekhine's Defense game, I
> came up blank. =A0I must have wrested them
> in some unclear fashion, rather than just
> check-and-grab, as so often happened
> earlier.
So you found the difference.
Here is your game can you do a quick analysis of the game?
Game Played between help bot and normal at GetClub.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
help bot: (Black)
normal: (White)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM25933&game=
=3DChess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
White -- Black
(normal) -- (help bot)
1. d2-d4{2} Ng8-f6{6}
2. c2-c4{0} g7-g6{4}
3. Nb1-c3{2} Bf8-g7{2}
4. e2-e4{0} Ke8-g8{4}
5. e4-e5{92} Nf6-e8{18}
6. f2-f4{204} d7-d6{42}
7. Ng1-f3{330} d6-e5{156}
8. f4-e5{634} Bc8-g4{56}
9. Nc3-d5{432} c7-c6{118}
10. Nd5-e3{164} Bg4-f3{36}
11. g2-f3{156} e7-e6{94}
12. Ne3-g4{156} h7-h5{60}
13. Ng4-f2{86} c6-c5{96}
14. d4-c5{150} Qd8-d1{40}
15. Nf2-d1{82} Bg7-e5{36}
16. Bf1-d3{510} Nb8-a6{120}
17. Bc1-h6{84} Ne8-g7{44}
18. c5-c6{178} b7-c6{90}
19. f3-f4{164} Na6-c5{86}
20. Bd3-f1{100} Be5-f6{42}
21. Bh6-g5{272} Bf6-g5{56}
22. f4-g5{110} a7-a5{48}
23. Ra1-b1{312} Ra8-b8{70}
24. h2-h3{310} Rf8-d8{34}
25. Rh1-h2{448} Ng7-f5{46}
26. Rb1-c1{138} Kg8-f8{104}
27. b2-b3{1282} a5-a4{44}
28. b3-a4{84} Nc5-a4{34}
29. Bf1-g2{224} c6-c5{52}
30. Bg2-c6{94} Rb8-b4{94}
31. a2-a3{112} Nf5-d4{234}
32. a3-b4{176} Nd4-c6{12}
33. Rc1-a1{234} Na4-b6{70}
34. b4-c5{154} Nb6-c4{60}
35. Ra1-c1{212} Nc4-e5{24}
36. Ke1-f1{158} Ne5-d3{174}
37. Rc1-c3{272} Nd3-f4{198}
38. Nd1-f2{164} Rd8-d2{64}
39. Rc3-c1{272} e6-e5{60}
40. Rh2-h1{1282} Rd2-a2{206}
41. Rc1-d1{244} Ra2-c2{64}
42. Nf2-e4{88} Nc6-d4{100}
43. Ne4-f6{212} Kf8-e7{76}
44. Rd1-b1{340} Nd4-f5{986}
45. Rb1-b7{132} Ke7-d8{22}
46. Rb7-d7{80} Kd8-c8{184}
47. Kf1-e1{0} Nf4-g2{390}
48. Ke1-f1{0} Nf5-g3{168}
49. Kf1-g1{0} Ng2-e1{412}
50. Rd7-d3{0}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
help bot: (Black)
normal: (White)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM25933&game=
=3DChess
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 22:46:24
From: Sanny
Subject: Your game was a good trap.
|
Yes in this game you win easily as the Beginner Level King was
attacked by a combination of 2 Rooks and Queen forcing a mate.
Play a new game and see how it plays. As the game was improved a bit
after this game played by you.
Game Played between Gallicrow and beginner at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallicrow: (White)
beginner: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25780&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White -- Black
(Gallicrow) -- (beginner)
1. e2-e4{6} Ng8-f6{0}
2. Nb1-c3{2} e7-e5{0}
3. Bf1-c4{2} Nb8-c6{0}
4. d2-d3{4} Bf8-b4{0}
5. Ng1-e2{4} Nc6-a5{6}
6. Ke1-g1{14} Na5-c4{32}
7. d3-c4{16} Bb4-a5{0}
8. Bc1-g5{10} h7-h6{8}
9. Bg5-h4{6} Ba5-c3{12}
10. Ne2-c3{10} d7-d6{10}
11. f2-f3{10} Bc8-e6{34}
12. b2-b3{6} g7-g5{14}
13. Bh4-f2{6} a7-a6{14}
14. Nc3-d5{16} Be6-d5{82}
15. c4-d5{16} Nf6-d7{10}
16. Qd1-e1{38} Ke8-g8{30}
17. g2-g4{4} f7-f6{24}
18. h2-h4{32} Nd7-b6{40}
19. Kg1-g2{28} Rf8-f7{32}
20. Rf1-h1{16} Ra8-b8{66}
21. Bf2-e3{28} Rf7-h7{26}
22. Rh1-h3{50} Qd8-e7{42}
23. Qe1-f2{28} Nb6-c8{22}
24. Ra1-h1{8} Rh7-f7{24}
25. h4-g5{8} h6-g5{8}
26. Rh3-h8{46} Kg8-g7{0}
27. Qf2-g1{8} Rf7-f8{32}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallicrow: (White)
beginner: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25780&game=Chess
Can you find which were the wrong moves in above game?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 04:57:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
On Sep 4, 5:13=A0am, "Jon D'Souza-Eva" <[email protected] > wrote:
Sanny wrote:
> > Earlier the games at GetClub used to be very one sided.
This does not "square with" what Sanny has
so often written in the past; previously, we
have been told how new "improvements" made
it difficult or impossible to deal with GC's fine
play.
> > Last 2 weeks there was no improvement done as no new idea came to my
> > mind. Still GetClub is playing very good moves.
In fact, it is now dysfunctional, since log-on
attempts just result in errors.
> > Beginner: 2200+
> > Easy: 2300+
> > Normal: 2400+
> No offense, but there is no way that the Beginner level of this
> program is anywhere near 2200. Based on the game I played against it a
> few days ago (http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
> id=3DDM25780&game=3DChess)
Another error-- failure to load Java applet.
> I would say that it played at 1600 at most, but
> perhaps without the very simply blunders that someone of that rating
> might be expected to play.
This sounds as if Sanny has fixed the most
rudimentary problems he has been having
with simple tactics, and indeed, in trying to
recall /exactly how/ I took two pawns away
in my infamous Alekhine's Defense game, I
came up blank. I must have wrested them
in some unclear fashion, rather than just
check-and-grab, as so often happened
earlier.
I think it is perfectly obvious to everyone
except Sanny that his claims are ludicrous,
yet there are those who are so annoyed
with his behavior that they swing the other
direction, slanting their ratings estimates
so as to "penalize" his lunacy. A few of
these critics had it that the GetClub
engine was a sub-1000 player, or a sub-1500
in any case.
My own estimate is that while the strength
varies wildly over time and between levels
and between "improvements", it generally
falls somewhere between about 1400 for the
lowest level and perhaps has touched 2100
or so for the highest one. Most of the latest
"improvements" have served to weaken it
back toward the middle of this span, and I
cannot say how long it has been since the
former peak strength was reached, but it
was probably several months ago.
One solution to this ratings divide could
be for the program's own ratings to be
"floated" once again, not fixed or rigged in
any way. Add to this a system by which
new players were assigned a starting
rating equivalent to their real-world one,
and we might begin to see some meaning
in the results. The fly in the ointment is
that while real-world ratings may be fairly
reliable, there is nothing to keep someone
from "cheating" during online play-- either
firing up their own chess engine or else
accepting the help of others. Likewise,
there are many, many players who have
no real-world chess ratings, and the site
could be swamped by them.
The final issue is that at GetClub, there
is no time restriction on the human player
whatsoever, and this is in sharp contrast
to ratings systems where each player is
given precisely the same amount of
thinking time for a game. Thus, while
various other factors serve to favor the
computer, the lack of any limitation on
thinking time serves to strongly affect the
results of those who choose to take
advantage thereof. As an old friend of
mine once put it: "oh, what a world!"
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 02:13:47
From: Jon D'Souza-Eva
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
On 4 Sep, 09:07, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Earlier the games at GetClub used to be very one sided. But now I find
> It takes a lots of efforts and new tricks to win games at GetClub.
>
> I was looking at last 10 games played at GetClub and found that there
> was huge struggle to win the games.
>
> Come at GetClub and enjoy playing Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> All recent games are quite interesting. I saw if the player is weak
> how GetClub dismantels the opponents pieces.
>
> And only very strong players or people using Chess Programs are able
> to win the Beginner Level.
>
> Last 2 weeks there was no improvement done as no new idea came to my
> mind. Still GetClub is playing very good moves.
>
> Beginner: 2200+
> Easy: 2300+
> Normal: 2400+
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
No offense, but there is no way that the Beginner level of this
program is anywhere near 2200. Based on the game I played against it a
few days ago (http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM25780&game=Chess) I would say that it played at 1600 at most, but
perhaps without the very simply blunders that someone of that rating
might be expected to play.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 13:35:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
[ -- > rec.games.chess.computer ]
Jon D'Souza-Eva <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 09:07, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Beginner: 2200+
>
> No offense, but there is no way that the Beginner level of this
> program is anywhere near 2200. Based on the game I played against it
> a few days ago (http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
> id=DM25780&game=Chess) I would say that it played at 1600 at most,
> but perhaps without the very simply blunders that someone of that
> rating might be expected to play.
I think that the time for politely telling Sanny that he has
absolutely no fucking clue what a rating of 2200 even means is far in
the past. He's been claiming that beginner is 2200 for months. Again
and again, he posts that his program is now `30% better' or `two times
improved' yet this figure of 2200 never changes.
If he believes that his program is of 2200 strength, he is delusional.
(I'd suggest misinformed as an alternative but he's been corrected on
this so many times.) If he believes that his program's strength is
constant and also continually increasing, he has no capability for
rational thought. If he does not believe these things that he parrots
so often, he is a liar. Take your pick.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Revolting Simple Ghost (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a haunting spirit but it has no moving
parts and it'll turn your stomach!
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 22:52:39
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Chess games very interesting at GetClub
|
David Richerby wrote:
> [ --> rec.games.chess.computer ]
>
> Jon D'Souza-Eva <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4 Sep, 09:07, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Beginner: 2200+
>> No offense, but there is no way that the Beginner level of this
>> program is anywhere near 2200. Based on the game I played against it
>> a few days ago (http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
>> id=DM25780&game=Chess) I would say that it played at 1600 at most,
>> but perhaps without the very simply blunders that someone of that
>> rating might be expected to play.
>
> I think that the time for politely telling Sanny that he has
> absolutely no fucking clue what a rating of 2200 even means is far in
> the past. He's been claiming that beginner is 2200 for months. Again
> and again, he posts that his program is now `30% better' or `two times
> improved' yet this figure of 2200 never changes.
>
> If he believes that his program is of 2200 strength, he is delusional.
> (I'd suggest misinformed as an alternative but he's been corrected on
> this so many times.) If he believes that his program's strength is
> constant and also continually increasing, he has no capability for
> rational thought. If he does not believe these things that he parrots
> so often, he is a liar. Take your pick.
>
>
> Dave.
>
I think he means SANNY 2200, not ELO 2200.
As for the conversion from SANNY ratings to ELO...
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
|
