| |
Main
Date: 16 Aug 2008 04:10:14
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
improvement done.
Can you spot mistakes in this game by GetClub?
Game Played between Rybka and easy at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka: (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM24853&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White -- Black
(Rybka) -- (easy)
1. d2-d4{16} Ng8-f6{0}
2. c2-c4{8} e7-e6{0}
3. Ng1-f3{12} Nf6-e4{20}
4. Qd1-d3{16} d7-d5{22}
5. c4-d5{10} e6-d5{30}
6. Nb1-d2{44} Bf8-b4{62}
7. a2-a3{16} Bb4-d2{40}
8. Nf3-d2{12} f7-f5{24}
9. Nd2-e4{14} f5-e4{20}
10. Qd3-g3{12} Ke8-g8{24}
11. Bc1-f4{14} Nb8-c6{48}
12. Bf4-c7{18} Qd8-f6{42}
13. e2-e3{16} Bc8-g4{96}
14. Bf1-b5{32} Ra8-c8{44}
15. Bc7-d6{12} Rf8-f7{118}
16. Ke1-g1{12} Qf6-f5{46}
17. h2-h3{14} Bg4-h5{24}
18. Ra1-c1{20} Bh5-g6{96}
19. Rc1-c5{22} h7-h6{66}
20. Rf1-c1{14} Bg6-h7{112}
21. Bb5-c4{18} Nc6-d4{24}
22. e3-d4{32} Rc8-c5{22}
23. Bd6-c5{14} Kg8-h8{62}
24. Bc4-e2{36} a7-a6{40}
25. Bc5-d6{16} b7-b6{88}
26. Be2-a6{16} Rf7-f6{296}
27. Rc1-c7{16} Rf6-g6{222}
28. Qg3-e5{16} Qf5-g5{96}
29. Qe5-g5{508} Rg6-g5{26}
30. Bd6-e7{14} Rg5-g6{20}
31. Ba6-e2{28} Bh7-g8{26}
32. Be2-h5{14} Rg6-e6{20}
33. Be7-f8{12} Kh8-h7{42}
34. Rc7-g7{36} Kh7-h8{0}
35. Rg7-c7{16} Bg8-h7{26}
36. Bf8-g7{14} Kh8-g8{0}
37. Bh5-f7{10} Kg8-g7{0}
38. Bf7-e6{12} Kg7-f6{42}
39. Rc7-h7{14} Kf6-e6{28}
40. Rh7-h6{12} Ke6-d7{92}
41. Rh6-b6{16} Kd7-c7{76}
42. a3-a4{44} Kc7-b6{64}
43. b2-b4{14} Kb6-c6{142}
44. h3-h4{12} Kc6-d7{322}
45. h4-h5{14} Kd7-e7{62}
46. a4-a5{12} Ke7-f6{144}
47. Kg1-f1{36} Kf6-f7{20}
48. a5-a6{298} Kf7-e6{0}
49. h5-h6{140} Ke6-d7{94}
50. h6-h7{122} Kd7-c6{106}
51. Kf1-e2{20} Kc6-b6{104}
52. Ke2-e3{26} Kb6-a6{28}
53. Ke3-f4{18} e4-e3{86}
54. f2-e3{186} Ka6-b6{96}
55. Kf4-e5{60} Kb6-c6{146}
56. b4-b5{86} Kc6-b7{130}
57. Ke5-d5{20} Kb7-b6{84}
58. Qh7-h8{Q}{18} Kb6-b5{52}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka: (White)
easy: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM24853&game=Chess
So what do you say how good Easy Level played against Rybka?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 19:57:48
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
* David Richerby <[email protected] > (13:12) schrieb:
> I have a huge problem with it. There are so many other things that
> Simon could do with his time, many of them enjoyable, many of them
> worthwhile, many of them even both.
I kind of enjoy studying GC's stupid code for doing a move.
This is actually mx first try in reverse engineering a java program, so
it's fun anyway.
mfg, simon .... l
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 09:35:28
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
> And the REALLY funny thing (ok, well, ONE of the MANY really funny
> things) is that I have counted at least 20 "twice stronger" posts from
> Sanny. Assuming that he actually means twice faster, and that it
> really WAS twice faster (which is, of course, impossible), thatGetClubwould now find ALL moves in one second that it used to need
> almost TWO WEEKS to find.
I remember when 2 years Back Taylor Kingston used to play at GetClub
it used to play moves in 1 hour. Now it plays the same move in just 1
second.
Baby level plays each move in just 2 seconds. While those days Master
Level using 1 hour analysis used to play wrong moves.
So really that much improvement has been done.
> Pretty friggin' hilarious.... Reading Sanny's posts is always better
> than reading the comics. :-)
Play Chess at GetClub that will be more of fun. Play 1 game daily at
GetClub and you will enjoy a lot.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 08:30:13
From:
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
> >Because now it plays the same move in half time. Say it used to see 8
> >depth in 20 secs. Now after improvement it sees the 8 depth in just 10
> >sec. So that is Twice improvement.
>
> That's not twice *stronger*
>
> That would be twice *faster* PROVIDED it's actually faster (ie: as if you
> moved to a faster computer.)
>
> Simply finding the same move in 10 seconds that used to take 20 seconds i=
s
> not necessarily the same as being stronger. =A0It just means you found a
> particular move faster than you used to. =A0That's not twice "stronger".
And the REALLY funny thing (ok, well, ONE of the MANY really funny
things) is that I have counted at least 20 "twice stronger" posts from
Sanny. Assuming that he actually means twice faster, and that it
really WAS twice faster (which is, of course, impossible), that
GetClub would now find ALL moves in one second that it used to need
almost TWO WEEKS to find.
Pretty friggin' hilarious.... Reading Sanny's posts is always better
than reading the comics. :-)
jm
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 22:11:38
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
> ?> ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around 30,00=
0
> ?> elo by now.
>
> >According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
> >increases by +50.
>
> "Twice stronger" in what way?
Because now it plays the same move in half time. Say it used to see 8
depth in 20 secs. Now after improvement it sees the 8 depth in just 10
sec. So that is Twice improvement.
> Do you really not understand just how vague that is??
>
> >So nowGetClubelo is +50 than it was earlier.
>
> Based on *ONE* program's estimated ratings??
>
> That's not valid.
I play against Rybka the worlds best program to test GetClub Chess.
> You need a lot more opponents than that to get a valid rating.
>
> And you need a lot more games to get that rating, too. =A0Hundreds of gam=
es
> are needed to get anything close to a reliable indicator of a change in
> strength like that.
Yes, I also analyze games played by other players to find weaknesses
in the game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 09:37:35
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
>"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:0e3c24ed-793a-4d08-9b0a->[email protected]...
>> ?> ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around
>> 30,000
>> ?> elo by now.
>>
>> >According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
>> >increases by +50.
>>
>> "Twice stronger" in what way?
>
>Because now it plays the same move in half time. Say it used to see 8
>depth in 20 secs. Now after improvement it sees the 8 depth in just 10
>sec. So that is Twice improvement.
That's not twice *stronger*
That would be twice *faster* PROVIDED it's actually faster (ie: as if you
moved to a faster computer.)
Simply finding the same move in 10 seconds that used to take 20 seconds is
not necessarily the same as being stronger. It just means you found a
particular move faster than you used to. That's not twice "stronger".
(And if you are still playing GC & Rybka at different time levels, then that
introduces an extra set of problems, issues, and caveats... Just suffice to
say it's not valid.....)
Let me give you an example....
You search for 60 seconds. During that time, your program looks at lots of
moves. For a while it thinks move XYZ is best. Then it looks deeper and
thinks ABC is best. Then it thinks a bit more and decides JFK is better.
Chess programs regularly change their minds as they search deeper.
So at the end of 60 seconds (like if you were in a game and had 60 seconds
to find a move), you picked move XYZ.
Your 'twice faster' would find that same XYZ move in 30 seconds. BUT, and
this is important, the game is set at 60 seconds a move. So you still have
30 more seconds to think.... In that 30 seconds, the odds are good it's
going to change its mind. Is it going to be a better move, a worse move, or
just a different move?
That's what timed games are about. It may be a fixed 60 seconds a move, or
it may be 40 moves in two hours and you cut up the time as needed, or it may
be 'game in 30' where you have to play the whole game in 30 minutes.
The 'twice better' (which isn't accurate, but...) meaning is only somewhat
valid for beginner kind of play where there are no time limits of any sort.
That is a valid kind of play for beginners, but you need to qualify any
results from that because that is definetly not how real games are played.
And it makes a difference. Time control really makes a difference!
For beginners, you can't really give ratings because they don't understand
ratings. But you can sort of fake it without too many people complaining.
But by the time you start doing ratings of 1800, 2000, etc. you can't do
that. That's not beginner quality play. For the people who do play at
those ratings for real, its all about timed play and your ratings are a
joke.
Ratings and time control are linked. You can't seperate them. They are
defined as a pair.
Games with no time control can not get ratings. (Caveat... can you get
ratings with postal chess? There are still time controls but they are loose
enough to be considered without controls for this discussion..)
>> Do you really not understand just how vague that is??
>>
>> >So nowGetClubelo is +50 than it was earlier.
>>
>> Based on *ONE* program's estimated ratings??
>>
>> That's not valid.
>
>I play against Rybka the worlds best program to test GetClub Chess.
Well hot shit.
It's still not valid. What part of "ONE" do you not understand?
>> You need a lot more opponents than that to get a valid rating.
>>
>> And you need a lot more games to get that rating, too. Hundreds of games
>> are needed to get anything close to a reliable indicator of a change in
>> strength like that.
>
>Yes, I also analyze games played by other players to find weaknesses
>in the game.
No, you need to start do serious testing and stop this stupid fake rating
stuff.
Why the heck do you think so many many many (ALL) chess programmers use test
positions?
It's a way they can run a few hundred or thousands of standard positions so
they can get a tolerable idea of what their program does understand and what
it doesn't understand.
And as a way to see if there are any regressions. Positions that it used to
solve but now can't.
If you do still want to get accurate ratings, we've told you many times how
to do that..... And it's not by playing Rybka.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
----== 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: 18 Aug 2008 06:11:44
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
* Guest <[email protected] > (21:57) schrieb:
> And there is absolutely no way you could know if somebody actually
> disassembled it. It could have happened dozens of times just yesterday and
> you'd never know.
Well, he could look at his webserver log and find my wgets on his
class and image files.
> Just be glad nobody actually cares enough about GC chess to actually want to
> do anything with it other than satisify their own curosity and set up some
> positions.
>
> If you've ever actually reverse engineered a program, you'd know how hard it
> is and you'd realize that nobody is going to waste their time doing that
> with GC chess. (People would rather mess with Rybka etc. Successful
> programs.)
Reverse engineering an non-obfuscated Java program like Sanny's is
probably at lot easier than trying that on Rybka 3.
> The people in here aren't planning on doing anything bad. Just be glad some
> people are actually curious about your program and accept it.
Yeah, the code is funny. It's a wonder that such crappy programming
actually plays something like chess.
They use Java to teach object oriented programming. Getclub consists of
two classes. If Java would force the use of classes at some points there
would probably be zero classes. I so far couldn't find a trace of OOP.
If you find Getclub starting slow, that might be because it loads one
class file, another class file ..., one image, another image ... It
could all be packaged in a single jar file, but the programmer probably
doesn't know about that.
The sever side seems to be done in PHP. One idiot, two idiot programming
languages. ;- >
mfg, simon .... l
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 09:11:37
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
"Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>* Guest <[email protected]> (21:57) schrieb:
>
>> And there is absolutely no way you could know if somebody actually
>> disassembled it. It could have happened dozens of times just yesterday
>> and
>> you'd never know.
>
> Well, he could look at his webserver log and find my wgets on his
> class and image files.
No way to differentiate them from a web browser (unless you told wget to use
a specific browser ID). Even so, that could just be a web site sucker.
Like you might try if you wanted to be able to get a local copy so you could
try to play it while offline.
>> Just be glad nobody actually cares enough about GC chess to actually want
>> to
>> do anything with it other than satisify their own curosity and set up
>> some
>> positions.
>>
>> If you've ever actually reverse engineered a program, you'd know how hard
>> it
>> is and you'd realize that nobody is going to waste their time doing that
>> with GC chess. (People would rather mess with Rybka etc. Successful
>> programs.)
>
> Reverse engineering an non-obfuscated Java program like Sanny's is
> probably at lot easier than trying that on Rybka 3.
Probably. but to me, reverse engineering is a lot more than simple
disassembly with a few comments.
It means actually understanding what the code does. The data structures and
algorithms being used.
Far enough where you could actually write comparable high level code with
descriptive comments such as "Update the attack squares and check for a pin
then a fork, in that order." and "We'll do part of ABC first because if
it's better than Epsilon then we wont have to do the rest of DEF
becuase...."
It's a very tedious task.
And I don't think anybody in here actually wants to understand GCChess that
well....
>> The people in here aren't planning on doing anything bad. Just be glad
>> some
>> people are actually curious about your program and accept it.
>
> Yeah, the code is funny. It's a wonder that such crappy programming
> actually plays something like chess.
>
> They use Java to teach object oriented programming. Getclub consists of
> two classes. If Java would force the use of classes at some points there
> would probably be zero classes. I so far couldn't find a trace of OOP.
Chess does not OOP well.
It just doesn't break down well into resonable objects. You end up forcing
it and its never a comfortable fit.
You can put stuff into classes, of course, but you can't reasonably OOP it.
> If you find Getclub starting slow, that might be because it loads one
I've never played GC. Don't intend to, either.
What little interest I have in this is curosity about what kind of
algorithms he used, and annoyance that he refuses to do any sort of
reasonable testing to determine its strength; prefering instead to make up
numbers.
I have no interest in playing it.
> class file, another class file ..., one image, another image ... It
> could all be packaged in a single jar file, but the programmer probably
> doesn't know about that.
>
> The sever side seems to be done in PHP. One idiot, two idiot programming
> languages. ;->
>
> mfg, simon .... l
----== 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: 17 Aug 2008 10:22:26
From:
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
On Aug 16, 10:56=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
> > > improvement done.
>
> > Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?
>
> > ELO ratings? =A0Not bloody likely. =A0At that rate, GC would be around =
30,000
> > elo by now.
>
> According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
> increases by +50.
>
> So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.
>
> Here is recent ratings for GetClub Chess.
>
> Baby: 2000+ (2 sec / move)
> Beginner: 2100+ (15 sec / move)
> Easy: 2200+ (1 min / move)
> Normal: 2300+ (4 min / move)
> Master 2400+ (20 min / move)
>
> Higher levels are not worth playing as they take lot of time. But
> Beginner & Easy give good challenge to all.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
These ratings are probably off by about 500-700 points. Just so you
know....
One other thing that you should understand is that REAL ratings are
also based on a time control. Example: if a player is rated 2000 at
tournament time controls (40 moves in 2 hours), and another player
needs 2 hours to find the same move that the 2000-rated player can
find in 2 minutes, then the slower player is NOT rated 2000, but
significantly lower.
Sanny, this is why your ratings are completely wrong.
jm
jm
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 22:56:08
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
> > Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
> > improvement done.
>
> Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?
>
> ELO ratings? =A0Not bloody likely. =A0At that rate, GC would be around 30=
,000
> elo by now.
According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
increases by +50.
So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.
Here is recent ratings for GetClub Chess.
Baby: 2000+ (2 sec / move)
Beginner: 2100+ (15 sec / move)
Easy: 2200+ (1 min / move)
Normal: 2300+ (4 min / move)
Master 2400+ (20 min / move)
Higher levels are not worth playing as they take lot of time. But
Beginner & Easy give good challenge to all.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 13:50:14
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
>"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
? > > Here is Strong game played byGetClubagainst Rybka after the
? > > improvement done.
? >
? > Why do you keep saying thatGetClubis *twice stronger*?
? >
? > ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
? > elo by now.
>According to Rybka everytime a playes becomes twice stronger his elo
>increases by +50.
"Twice stronger" in what way?
Do you really not understand just how vague that is??
>So now GetClub elo is +50 than it was earlier.
Based on *ONE* program's estimated ratings??
That's not valid.
You need a lot more opponents than that to get a valid rating.
And you need a lot more games to get that rating, too. Hundreds of games
are needed to get anything close to a reliable indicator of a change in
strength like that.
It is mathematically impossible to get even a semi-accurate rating if you
only do it against one opponent.
It just simply does not work that way.
And what little you are doing, you aren't even doing right. You aren't
doing it time based. You give GC 5 or 10 times longer than Rybka, while
forcing Rybka to run at such absurdly reduced time limit that it can't even
play as well it should.
This is *NOT* about your program. This is about *your* refusal to do
accepted methods to get to a reliable rating estimate for your program.
People have been telling you this dozens or hundreds of times, and you are
still refusing to do things the right way.
And your refusal to even do standard test positions. Which wont give a good
rating estimate, but it would allow people to look at the results and
objectively judge the program's abilities in those types of situations.
I don't know how strong your program is, and I honestly don't care one way
or the other. This is all about your flat out refusal to even attempt to do
any sort of reliable testing to get those ratings you brag about.
It's a joke Sanny. People are laughing at you behind your back. Heck, some
are even doing it to your face.
If you want people to believe your ratings estimates, you must follow
accepted methods to get those ratings.
Until you do, you are the circus clown everybody is laughing at.
The poor country boy on his first trip to the Big City, who's trying to look
fancy and sophisticated while walking out of the lavatory with paper stuck
to his shoe.
The sucker that some pretty girl brought to a party so that everybody else
could laugh at.
I understand that doing reliable ratings tests are hard and time consuming.
Even doing automated tests on some internet chess server could be hard
because of how your GC is programmed. That's why I even gave you a way to
'cheat' and report some standard test positions. You could do those tests
in an evening and then compare those results to what other programs can give
at the *SAME* time controls.
That wouldn't be the same as a rating, but it would allow comparison of your
program to others that do have known strengths etc.
It would be something solid, rather than your ratings that you pick out of a
hat.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 22:51:06
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
> > Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
> > positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
> > joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
>
> He can try to sue me. :-)
Only those who do wrong may afraid. The GetClub game is only for
playing no hacking/ other activities.
If you do any of them then I think you are intelligent enough to know
the consequences.
Bye
Sanny
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 14:57:28
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e975efb5-bc32-4534-9466-0688d59c8108@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set
>> > up
>> > positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
>> > joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
>>
>> He can try to sue me. :-)
>
> Only those who do wrong may afraid. The GetClub game is only for
> playing no hacking/ other activities.
>
> If you do any of them then I think you are intelligent enough to know
> the consequences.
Sanny, he *does* know the consequences.
That's why he thought it was so funny.....
The reality is that there is nothing you can do. Especially if that person
is in a different country.
If the person is actually fairly clever, then you wont even *know* somebody
is trying to run a modified version. Just look at the massive effort online
games companies do to try and detect cheaters and bots. And every couple
weeks, something new comes out that the companies spend months trying to
eliminate. With all the money and programmers they have, they can't keep
up.
And there is absolutely no way you could know if somebody actually
disassembled it. It could have happened dozens of times just yesterday and
you'd never know.
That's the real world. Get used to it.
Just be glad nobody actually cares enough about GC chess to actually want to
do anything with it other than satisify their own curosity and set up some
positions.
If you've ever actually reverse engineered a program, you'd know how hard it
is and you'd realize that nobody is going to waste their time doing that
with GC chess. (People would rather mess with Rybka etc. Successful
programs.)
The people in here aren't planning on doing anything bad. Just be glad some
people are actually curious about your program and accept it.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
>
----== 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: 17 Aug 2008 03:49:52
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
* Guest <[email protected] > (00:45) schrieb:
> Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.
Guess why he keeps asking for errors and such and just presents lost
games? That's the only testing there is.
> I've never looked at it, but it might actually still be there in the public
> version. You just need to do something special to activate it.
Been at least a year since I took a look at his site.
>> Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
>> application.
>
> Just to keep Sanny happy, try to do it without actually modifying his
> program.
Of course. I would leave the jar intact and add an additional jar that
calls into the original code.
LOL, I took at look at it now: No jar file, one big class file!
> Or maybe by intercepting the network I/O it does. Does it load games from
> the server? If so, intercept that and inject your own positions.
Yeah, that's an interesting way too.
> Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
> positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
> joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
He can try to sue me. :-)
mfg, simon .... l
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 00:20:51
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
* Guest <[email protected] > (16:26) schrieb:
> Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
> results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
> positions are standard testing positions from human games.
I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface that
doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.
Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
application.
mfg, simon .... l
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 17:45:43
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
"Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>* Guest <[email protected]> (16:26) schrieb:
>
>> Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
>> results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
>> positions are standard testing positions from human games.
>
> I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface that
> doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.
I think it's likely that he has a private interface that doesn't get
compiled into the public version.
To set up positions, run test scripts, etc.
Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.
I've never looked at it, but it might actually still be there in the public
version. You just need to do something special to activate it.
It's odd that even the public version can't set up positions though. Surely
even normal chess players would want to set up a tough position and study it
with such a STRONG program....
> Heck, I need some reason to try to hack his applet into an UCI
> application.
Just to keep Sanny happy, try to do it without actually modifying his
program.
Do it by injecting commands etc. directly into the inner part of his
program.
Or maybe by intercepting the network I/O it does. Does it load games from
the server? If so, intercept that and inject your own positions.
Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to set up
positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time somebody even
joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 12:12:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
Guest <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface
>> that doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.
>
> I think it's likely that he has a private interface that doesn't get
> compiled into the public version.
>
> To set up positions, run test scripts, etc.
>
> Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.
Ha ha ha! Obviously, any well-written chess program would have such
an interface. But to try to make inferences about GC from what
well-written programs do is like trying to [insert simile here].
> Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to
> set up positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time
> somebody even joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
I have a huge problem with it. There are so many other things that
Simon could do with his time, many of them enjoyable, many of them
worthwhile, many of them even both.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Simple Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it has no moving
parts!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 08:59:01
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:h3m*[email protected]...
> Guest <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I guess he can't do that because all he has is the web interface
>>> that doesn't allow for position setup and analyzing.
>>
>> I think it's likely that he has a private interface that doesn't get
>> compiled into the public version.
>>
>> To set up positions, run test scripts, etc.
>>
>> Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.
>
> Ha ha ha! Obviously, any well-written chess program would have such
> an interface. But to try to make inferences about GC from what
> well-written programs do is like trying to [insert simile here].
You need that kind of interface just to set up a position and see if the
move generator is working. To see if all the moves are being gnereated
when an enpassant or promotion is possible, and so on.
A way to dump debugging information, such as list of the ply 1 moves &
scores during the search.
Or to see what squares are being attacked by what piece, etc.
A lot of simple kind of stuff that you can't do from within a gui.
Even Sanny's program had to have (at least in the beginning) a way to do
various testing stuff.
>> Personally I have no problem with you trying to figure out a way to
>> set up positions in GC, but you know how Sanny got the last time
>> somebody even joked at looking at it with a debugger etc.
>
> I have a huge problem with it. There are so many other things that
> Simon could do with his time, many of them enjoyable, many of them
> worthwhile, many of them even both.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Simple Peanut (TM): it's
> like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it has no
> moving
> parts!
>
----== 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: 18 Aug 2008 16:49:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
Guest <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Guest <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think it's likely that he has a private interface that doesn't get
>>> compiled into the public version.
>>>
>>> To set up positions, run test scripts, etc.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, it'd be too hard to do development and basic testing.
>>
>> Ha ha ha! Obviously, any well-written chess program would have such
>> an interface. But to try to make inferences about GC from what
>> well-written programs do is like trying to [insert simile here].
>
> You need that kind of interface just to set up a position and see if
> the move generator is working. To see if all the moves are being
> gnereated when an enpassant or promotion is possible, and so
> on. [And so on]
Sure, any sensible person writing a chess program would do all the
things you indicate. But Sanny isn't a sensible person writing a
chess program so all the bets are off.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Strange Smokes (TM): it's like a pack
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cigarettes but it's totally weird!
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 09:26:37
From: Guest
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
> improvement done.
Why do you keep saying that GetClub is *twice stronger*?
ELO ratings? Not bloody likely. At that rate, GC would be around 30,000
elo by now.
Length of the game.... A couple moves longe rmakes the program 'twice
stronger'? Quite possibly. You have mentioned things like that before.
Let me quote you something that International Master Charles Kalme once said
about a chess program that he used to be involved in....
Quote***
... the machine was never really in the game and had no viable plan beyond
the defense it was forced into. It is easy to make the best moves, in the
sense of losing more slowly, if these entail meeting immediate tactical
threats.
End Quote***
In other words, the program had no idea what to do to win. All it knew how
to do was lose more slowly when forced into it.
Admittedly, the chess program he was involved with was pathetic. Inovative,
but pathetic even by the standards of the time. But the priciple remains.
He is clearly pointing out there is a difference in knowing how to win and
just being able to loose more slowly when forced into it.
If you want people to take you seriously, you better start providing some
testing results to back it up.
Take the old Bratko test and the Win At Chess positions and report GC's
results at 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds per position. Those
positions are standard testing positions from human games.
That at least is a reasonaly simple thing you can do to prove to the world
your program is actually improving.
And heck, if your program is actually decent, wouldn't you *WANT* to brag
about how well your program does on standard chess positions?
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 15:27:11
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: GetClub Twice Stronger again !!!
|
Sanny wrote:
> Here is Strong game played by GetClub against Rybka after the
> improvement done.
>
> Can you spot mistakes in this game by GetClub?
Plenty of huge mistakes e.g.
- 11...Nc6 just obviously gives up a pawn for nothing
- 18...Bg6 worsens the position of a piece while also giving up further
material
- 20...Bh7 is just idiotic - that Bh5-g6-h7 maneuver doesn't gain
anything while in the meantime white wins a piece
- 25...b6 just gives away another pawn for no reason.
Why do you call this a strong game?
Rybka is just mopping up after move 16, okay, while Rybka is objectively
winning from then onwards, it is reasonably to try to see whether there
is some hope of swindling a draw. However by move 30 Rybka is so
obviously winning, that I think we see one major lack in the GetClub
program: It does not know when to resign.
If the computer would resign in hopeless positions like this, that would
be a great new feature (but just to clarify, which seems necessary given
your past track record: the rules of chess all GetClub to resign, but it
does not allow the computer to decide that its opponent is resigning...)
|
|
