| |
Main
Date: 12 Oct 2006 04:12:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Chess Game further improved. (Time Managment)
|
Little bit of time managment was done, So that the Program make moves
in proper time.
Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Play with Beginner Level for 10- 30 seconds game. (good games)
Play with Easy Level for 20- 60 seconds game. (very tough games)
Play with Normal Level for 40 seconds - 2 min Game. (for tournament
players.)
Hope Everyone will like the improvement. With Each improvement GetClub
game is becoming tougher and better.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:11:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I replayed the game and found CheckMate.
|
Sanny wrote:
> > Actually, Daniel's message is detailed enough that I know exactly which
> > section of your code is buggy and how to fix it. If you want to be
> > positive, play through his game, or ask your programmers to do the
> > same, and they'll see, too.
> >
> > > May be you get disconnected.
> >
> > No, that wasn't the problem.
>
> Ok I Replayed the Game with Beginner Level without Login and Same game
> was played
Hi Sanny,
That was a nice effort on your part.
> 17. Kh1 Bxe5
> (HERE YOU are GETTING CHECK by ROOK at h8)
> When you took Bishop at e5 by Rxe5 Your king being Checked by Rook at
> h8
>
> So 18: Rxe5 Rxh1 (And you king is Mated)
Actually, this is a subtle bug in your program.
18.Rxe5 is an illegal move. When a player is in check, he must move out
of check. You must not allow Rxe5, the same way you don't allow Rxc8.
The rules say, "If, during a game, it is found that an illegal move was
made, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the
illegal move was made." And further, "Playing an illegal move does not
imply the loss of the game."
18...Rxh1 is also illegal. You're not allowed to capture your
opponent's king.
> 18. Rxe5 (board reset and the move showing in the list was Black moved Rh1).
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert -- http://likesforests.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 01:22:11
From: Sanny
Subject: I replayed the game and found CheckMate.
|
> Actually, Daniel's message is detailed enough that I know exactly which
> section of your code is buggy and how to fix it. If you want to be
> positive, play through his game, or ask your programmers to do the
> same, and they'll see, too.
>
> > May be you get disconnected.
>
> No, that wasn't the problem.
Ok I Replayed the Game with Beginner Level without Login and Same game
was played
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Be2 d5
4. O-O dxe4
5. Nxe5 Nxe5
6. Bb5+ c6
7. Qh5 Bd6
8. d4 Bg4
9. Qg5 Qxg5
10. Bxg5 b5
11. dxe5 Bxe5
12. Nd2 h6
13. Rae1 hxg5
14. Rxe4 O-O-O
15. Nf3 Bf4
16. Ne5 Bh2+
17. Kh1 Bxe5
(HERE YOU are GETTING CHECK by ROOK at h8)
When you took Bishop at e5 by Rxe5 Your king being Checked by Rook at
h8
So 18: Rxe5 Rxh1 (And you king is Mated)
18. Rxe5 (board reset and the move showing in the list was Black moved
Rh1).
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 00:11:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Play Recorded Games only.
|
Sanny wrote:
> > Here's the list of not-so-serious moves (in standard Algebraic notation)
> > that I was using to see how quickly the computer could defeat me on beginner
> > mode (computer was playing black)...
> ......
> ......
> > 17. Kh1 Bxe5
> > 18. Rxe5 (board reset and the move showing in the list was Black moved Rh1).
> I can't say anything unless you play a game that is recorded.
Taylor called you a negative person, because "when flaws in [your]
program are pointed out, [your] usual response is to blame the
messenger". That is what you're doing here--you suggest he got
disconnected (blame), then say you can't do anything because he didn't
record the game (excuse).
Actually, Daniel's message is detailed enough that I know exactly which
section of your code is buggy and how to fix it. If you want to be
positive, play through his game, or ask your programmers to do the
same, and they'll see, too.
> May be you get disconnected.
No, that wasn't the problem.
> So Always play recorded games, by login.
If your site offers unrecorded games, be prepared to support them.
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert -- http://likesforests.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 23:19:00
From: Sanny
Subject: Play Recorded Games only.
|
> Here's the list of not-so-serious moves (in standard Algebraic notation)
> that I was using to see how quickly the computer could defeat me on beginner
> mode (computer was playing black)...
......
......
> 17. Kh1 Bxe5
> 18. Rxe5 (board reset and the move showing in the list was Black moved Rh1).
I can't say anything unless you play a game that is recorded. 1000s of
Games have been played and no one have complained such a thing.
May be you get disconnected. If you play recorded games you can restart
the game later from the position it got disconnected. However if you
are playing without Login you loose the game the Moment your Internet
connection gets disconnected.
So Always play recorded games, by login.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:35:10
From: Sanny
Subject: Why it is Strategically blind?
|
> Strategically blind,
> while the tactical skills were hardly impressive either.
> .
Could You emphasis in detail what you mean by Strategically blind,
(What type of Strategy you are looking for?)
And what is the meaning of tactical skills?
If you could elaborate with Example that will be helpful in improving
the game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 11:51:43
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Why it is Strategically blind?
|
"Why it is Strategically blind?" - Well, I guess because it was
programmed that way.
Sanny wrote:
>>Strategically blind,
>>while the tactical skills were hardly impressive either.
>>.
>
>
> Could You emphasis in detail what you mean by Strategically blind,
> (What type of Strategy you are looking for?)
Any kind of strategy? Having a plan? Putting pieces on squares where
they are active and cooperate effectively with the rest of the pieces?
> And what is the meaning of tactical skills?
Ability to calculate accurately. For a start not overlooking mates would
not be bad. Similarly not constantly loosing pieces.
> If you could elaborate with Example that will be helpful in improving
> the game.
Not sure whether this is helpful in improving the game. If there were
easy answers such as "always do X in situations resembling situation Y"
and if there weren't always caveats such as "unless you have already
done Z, or unless the opponent could reply with..." etc. As far as I can
tell your program has 2 problems:
1. It isn't very good tactically and overlooks simple tactical problems,
this could be fixed by programming more efficiently so that the program
searches to a greater depth in the same amount of time (however I guess
it is unlikely that your programmers will manage that, so forget that
for the time being).
2. Your positional evaluation function isn't good enough. It seems like
you have a couple of things sorted (like developing pieces), but not in
a way that reflects a true understanding of positions, as shown by how
the program handles the positions below.
Bjoern - Sanny's Chess Program (Master level)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Nf6
8.f3 So far the opening by black was very much okay, while he took ages
for each move I wonder whether this was not the opening book after all,
because what follows is so much less accurate that one has to be
surprised by how quickly the computer manages to ruin the black position
following its perfectly reasonable first 7 moves. 8...Bd7 The computer
played this move without a plan, various moves such as 0-0, Qd6, exd4 of
e5-e4 all make sense, but probably the computer was programmed to make
sure it develops all its pieces?! 9.Ne2 Qd6 10.Ng3 Be6 As it turns out
8...Bd7 was a completely wasted move now. 11.Bd3 g5 Is black trying to
attack on the kingside? As it turns out, no. But unless that is the idea
11...g5 is just a weakening of black's position. 12.0-0 a6 In itself not
necessarily wrong, but in combination with 11...g5 this just looks
silly. 13.Nf5 Bxf5 14.Bxf5 exd4 releases the tension in the centre, not
necessarily totally wrong, but also played for no particular reason. Why
not just castle short? Oh, I forgot: the kingside is already weakened by
g7-g5! 15.cxd4 Ne7 16.Bc2 b5 17.Qe1 Nc6 18.Bc3!? 0-0 White is planning
to set up a big centre, but black just ignores that. Maybe Nd5 was worth
a try. In fact 18...0-0 is very dangerous, but I didn't spot that one
could punish black quite severly by playing 19.f4 in response (which is
so good because of the weakening move g7-g5). 19.Rd1 Rfe8 20.e4 Rad8 I
assume the computer has been following its programming: get all pieces
out and put the rooks on semi-open files. As this was done without any
regards to the requirements of the position white is at least better if
not winning. 21.Qf2 Qa3 22.Bb3 Rd7 Black now entangles himself and white
can now win material by force. What is the point of that move anyway?
Doubling rooks on the d-file? Surely that is totally ineffective as
white can just play d4-d5. 23.d5 Ne5 24.Qg3 Most of the defensive moves
by black over the next few moves are suboptimal, but white is winning
anyway. 24...Qd6 25.Qxg5+ Kh8 Not only is black a pawn down, the
computer has also placed his king on the same diagonal as the dangerous
bishop on c3. If the computer understood anything about chess he would
have resigned here or at most 5 moves later. 26.f4 Qb6+ 27.Bd4 Nxe4
28.Qf5 Qf6 29.Qxf6+ Nxf6 30.fxe5 c5 31.Ba1 c4 32.e6 fxe6 33.Bxf6+ Kg8
34.Bc2 exd5 35.Rf3 h6 36.Bg6 Re2 37.Rg3 Kf8 Black desperately wants to
be mated as quickly as possible. 38.Rf1 b4 39.Bh4+ Kg8 40.Bh5+ Kh7 Once
more preferring a quick mate to the "better" move Rg7. 41.Bxe2 a5 42.Bg4
Rb7 43.Bf5+ Kh8 44.Bf6+ Rg7 1-0
Bjoern - Sanny's Chess Program (Beginner level)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Bf5
This has never been played before, I guess there is a reason for that.
8.f3 exd4 9.cxd4 Nf6 10.e4 Unless black is willing to sacrifice on e4,
the computers play up from move 7 onwards doesn't make any sense, surely
Nxe4 or maybe Bxe4 are pretty much forced? Following 10...Qe6 white has
a position that is so much better that the game is nearly over now.
10...Qe6 11.Bb5 a6 What is the point of that move? Forcing me to destroy
black's pawn structure surely makes no sense at all. 12.Bxc6+ bxc6
13.Ne2 Bg6 14.Bb4 That game is obviously over now, but the computer
doesn't know when to resign. Black's pawn structure is ruined, his
bishop on g6 is hardly more than a glorified pawn and his king is stuck
in the centre for now. To be able to castle black would have to do
something like sacrificing the a-pawn to distract the bishop from the
a3-f8 diagonal, but the computer is incapable of comprehending that this
is necessary and prefers to "keep" its pawn (for the time being).
14...Qc4 15.Qd2 Rd8 16.Rc1 Qb5 17.0-0 Nd7 18.Rfd1 f6 19.a3 Ne5 20.Nc3
Qb8 21.Na4 Bf7 For the first time in the game black has done something
sensible, he has put his bishop on a better diagonal, but otherwise he
has been maneuvering about aimlessly without any clear goal. Not sure
what more there is to say about it. 22.Qc3 Nc4 23.Nc5 Qb6 24.Nb3 Qb5
25.Na5 Nxa5 26.Bxa5 Rd7 The computer should just have castled and
accepted the loss of a pawn or so. 27.Bb4 a5 28.Bxa5 h6 What sort of
justification for a pawn sacrifice like 27...a5 is that? Previously
black always refused to give up a pawn when it might have helped with
saving the king from the centre, but now without any idea at all black
has sacrifice a pawn after all and now plays 28...h6? Unbelievably
stupid. 29.Bb4 Of course! Now black does some more idiotic shuffling
about of pieces just to make sure the bishop gets shut back in
(remember, the one good thing black did do all game, getting the bishop
on the better a2-g8 diagonal becomes worthless now). 29...Be6 30.Qxc6
Qb6 31.Qxb6 cxb6 32.d5 Bf7 33.Rc6 b5 34.Rb6 Rd8 35.Rc1 Obviously black
is "more lost" than ever, but the computer still playing on. 35...f5
Tactical suicide, but does it make much of a difference? 36.Rc7 fxe4
Overlooks a mate, but I didn't spot that either and just preferred to
win a rook. 37.Re7+ Kf8 38.Rd7+ Ke8 39.Rxd8+ Kxd8 40.Rb8+ Kd7 41.Rxh8
Black has suffered the consequences of not castling. It's hardly worth
it to comment on the following moves. 41...Bxd5 42.f4 g5 43.fxg5 hxg5
44.Rh5 e3 45.Rxg5 Kc6 46.h4 e2 47.h5 Bc4 48.h6 Bd3 49.Rg7 Kb6 50.g4 e1B
51.Bxe1 Kc5 52.g5 b4 53.Bxb4+ Kd5 54.g6 Ke6 55.Bc3 Kd5 56.h7 Kc4 57.Bb4
Bxg6 58.h8Q Bf5 59.Rc7+ Kd5 60.Qd8+ Ke4 61.Re7+ Kf3 62.Qf8 Kg4 63.Bd2
Bb1 64.Rg7+ Bg6 1-0
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 23:41:06
From: Sanny
Subject: Your Game was not recorded.
|
I feel you played with Beginner Level and you were Check Mated in by
Mate in 2 or 3.
Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Since your game was not recorded it means you played with Beginner
Level without login. As for Higher Levels the Game is recorded and
saved.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 02:58:03
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Subject: Re: Your Game was not recorded.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I feel you played with Beginner Level and you were Check Mated in by
> Mate in 2 or 3.
>
> Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Since your game was not recorded it means you played with Beginner
> Level without login. As for Higher Levels the Game is recorded and
> saved.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
You have an issue where the game board reset itself after move 18 on
beginner mode.
Here's the list of not-so-serious moves (in standard Algebraic notation)
that I was using to see how quickly the computer could defeat me on beginner
mode (computer was playing black)...
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Be2 d5
4. O-O dxe4
5. Nxe5 Nxe5
6. Bb5+ c6
7. Qh5 Bd6
8. d4 Bg4
9. Qg5 Qxg5
10. Bxg5 b5
11. dxe5 Bxe5
12. Nd2 h6
13. Rae1 hxg6
14. Re4 O-O-O
15. Nf3 Bf4
16. Ne5 Bh2+
17. Kh1 Bxe5
18. Rxe5 (board reset and the move showing in the list was Black moved Rh1).
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:53:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
Bjoern wrote:
> A couple of suggestions on how to improve the enjoyment of the game for
> the users:
> * let the program resign when its position is totally hopeless (e.g.
> when it's down by a queen and some other pieces), it was annoyingly slow
> in making its moves at that stage
> * get rid of the sound effects
Noooooooo! I *need* the sound to inform me when
the program (FINALLY!) makes its move. Let those
who are bothered by the sounds turn simply their volume
down. On my computer, this takes about two seconds.
> * stop that user profile page from popping up all the time
Right.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:19:27
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
help bot wrote:
> Bjoern wrote:
>
>
>>A couple of suggestions on how to improve the enjoyment of the game for
>>the users:
>>* let the program resign when its position is totally hopeless (e.g.
>>when it's down by a queen and some other pieces), it was annoyingly slow
>>in making its moves at that stage
>>* get rid of the sound effects
>
>
>
> Noooooooo! I *need* the sound to inform me when
> the program (FINALLY!) makes its move. Let those
> who are bothered by the sounds turn simply their volume
> down. On my computer, this takes about two seconds.
Mmh, I guess there is that use for it. Maybe one could turn it into a
less embarassingly silly sound?
Having just finished a game with the master level, I must say that it is
useful for getting a notification about a new move while doing other stuff.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM4027&game=Chess
As far as I can tell the master level is in no way stronger than the
beginner level just much, muuuuuuuch slower. It just passively sat back
after giving me the pair of bishops and the centre. Strategically blind,
while the tactical skills were hardly impressive either.
I haven't played anyone this weak in ages, I have had the occasional
rated game with 1600s in the last two years and they were usually
tougher than this. There was one 1300ish player I played two years ago
and that felt about like it feels to play the master level, however the
1300 did keep to the time limit and made his moves at an acceptable pace.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:45:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-10-14, Sanny wrote:
> > RECENTLY the Game has been improved and its ratings will be very good.
> >
> > Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> >
> > Now it plays in Time it Shows
> >
> > Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
> > Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
>
> Move 4 on Easy level, and I've already waited more than 15
> minutes... ah, it moved: 15:30.
>
> Only 7 minutes for move 5.
>
> Still nowhere near the claimed times.
Watching the screen as the program analyses, does
it seem to lose ground on your machine, going deeper,
then shallower, then deeper again?
I wonder how much of my difficulties are due to my
wireless connection, and how much due to the Java
applet.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:41:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!
|
Sanny wrote:
> > When I move up a level, I soon begin to notice that
> > I am slowly aging, and while I wait for the program
> > to make its next move, I ponder the meaning of life,
> > calculate the distance from Earth to the Sun, and
> > retranslate Fischer's MSMG into algebraic notation.
> > ;>D
> >
>
> 20 minutes back the Game was dramatically Improved. And I feel it will
> be a great Challenge to play with Beginner & Easy Levels for most
> players.
>
> Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> While Nomorechess will be happy with Normal Level
Sanny, my comments ragarding the slowness of
your program are not to be taken seriously. As I
have noted before, the program seems to frequently
lose ground on my computer, going deeper, then
shallower, then deeper, then shallower again, most
likely due to an inconsistent internet connection.
All this results in a huge loss of time, since the
program appears to be "re-analysing" more than it is
analysing any given position. This too, is why I cannot
seem to finish a game against the higher levels
anymore.
-- help bot
PS: it's now 93,102,411.72 miles away!
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 02:12:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
> > Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
> > Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
>
> Move 4 on Easy level, and I've already waited more than 15
> minutes... ah, it moved: 15:30.
>
The game was improved just 20 minutes back
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Close the Game and Start game in a new browser to see the new game. Or
restart your Computer.
As sometimes browsers do not remove old files even after refreshing the
page.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 05:17:57
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
On 2006-10-14, Sanny wrote:
>> > Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
>> > Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
>>
>> Move 4 on Easy level, and I've already waited more than 15
>> minutes... ah, it moved: 15:30.
>>
> The game was improved just 20 minutes back
I started the game after* reading your post.
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Close the Game and Start game in a new browser to see the new game. Or
> restart your Computer.
This was a new browser instance. And no, I do not restart my
computer. I've already done that once this month (to add a new hard
drive), and that was since my last game on your site.
> As sometimes browsers do not remove old files even after refreshing the
> page.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:24:47
From: Sanny
Subject: Game Speed increased !!!
|
> When I move up a level, I soon begin to notice that
> I am slowly aging, and while I wait for the program
> to make its next move, I ponder the meaning of life,
> calculate the distance from Earth to the Sun, and
> retranslate Fischer's MSMG into algebraic notation.
> ;>D
>
20 minutes back the Game was dramatically Improved. And I feel it will
be a great Challenge to play with Beginner & Easy Levels for most
players.
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
While Nomorechess will be happy with Normal Level
And Taylor Kingston & Bob will be beaten by its Master Level.
The Game is going to play faster than ever thinking much deeper than
previously it used to play.
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
You will love playing Games now as it will make moves in reasionable
time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:13:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sanny ovestimates his engine, again.
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Perhaps, 1400 1460 1480 1490 1500 is a fairer spread. I notice some
> difference between Beginner and Master, but none when moving up/down
> one level.
When I move up a level, I soon begin to notice that
I am slowly aging, and while I wait for the program
to make its next move, I ponder the meaning of life,
calculate the distance from Earth to the Sun, and
retranslate Fischer's MSMG into algebraic notation.
; >D
> Increasing a chess engine's analysis time from 5s to 10s has more
> impact on its results than increasing it from 60s to 120s--the law of
> diminishing returns.
True, there is a loss with each increase in depth, but
Sanny's program is still in the early stages, where the
loss is smaller. Right now, I am playing the "Normal"
level and in the opening and midgame, the program
looks only 7 plys deep!
> In August, when it was 1300 and he was claiming it was 1500, he said
> his engine was strong because I took me 42 moves to beat it. Now it's
> perhaps 1400 and he's claiming it's 1600. The more things change, the
> more they stay the same.
Sanny's comments must be taken with a bag of salt.
(Warning: don't try this if you have high blood pressure;
instead, use potassium chloride as a salt substitute.)
> > Last night (this morning, actually) I was so tired I
> > unwittingly left my Queen en prise against Sanny's
> > program. "No problemo", as the Terminator would
> > say; I eventually won anyway.
>
> Are you serious?? I would like to see that.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3982&game=Chess
Sanny's program was annoying me after a very hard day
at work, and a long night, and I fell asleep at the wheel.
My wireless connection makes the waits between moves
almost unbearable, as the program goes back and forth,
seeming to make no progress whatever.
> I get the feeling, when the computer merely defends planlessly, I
> should be able to formulate a plan and destroy it... but that's one of
> my weak areas.
I wouldn;t know anything about weak areas, since I haven't
got any. ; >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 00:53:54
From: Sanny
Subject: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
RECENTLY the Game has been improved and its ratings will be very good.
Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Now it plays in Time it Shows
Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
Normal Level: 40-50 Seconds/move. (1800)
Play 3 games with Each level and you will see the difference. Now it is
playing very good moves.
Start new game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
The improvements were Made Today Only, So you need to play a game
before giving rating.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 17:29:19
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
1600 my ass.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6 7.
Ng5 O-O 8.Qh5 h6 9. Nxf7 Rxf7 10. Bxf7+ Kh7 11. Bxh6 g6 12. Qxg6+ *
And I suppose it resigned - it bounced me to the startup screen rather
than play 12 ... Kh8 13.Qg7# (or, the way this game plays, 13. ... Kxg7
14.Bxg7).
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 17:59:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
In article
<[email protected] >,
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> 1600 my ass.
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6 7.
> Ng5 O-O 8.Qh5 h6 9. Nxf7 Rxf7 10. Bxf7+ Kh7 11. Bxh6 g6 12. Qxg6+ *
>
> And I suppose it resigned - it bounced me to the startup screen rather
> than play 12 ... Kh8 13.Qg7# (or, the way this game plays, 13. ... Kxg7
> 14.Bxg7).
Let me say this again.
1600 my ass.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.dxe5 Bb4+? 6.c3 Bc5 7.Qd5 Bxf2+
8.Ke2.
And now the program seems to have frozen up. Ten or so minutes on this
position where there's only one halfway reasonable move.
(Of course, 8. ... 0-0 9.Qxe4 Bb6 10.Ng5 g6 is winning for white,
anyway.)
Oh, wait! He moved. He'd rather be down two pieces than one!
8.... Nxc3+ 9.Nxc3 Qe7 (after a several-minute think) 10.Kxf2
I love it when the computer talks smack from a completely busted
position.
10 ... d6 11.ed c6 (wow - first time since move four that it's move in
the required time.) 12.Bg5 f6 13.Re1+ Ne5 14.Nxe5 15.Rxe5 Qxe5? (the
computer can't see a mate in four of all checks - Sanny, you might want
to work on that - I would expect a 1000-rated player to see that Qxe5 is
forced mate) 16.Qf7+ Kd8 17.Re1+
And the computer resigned.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 19:08:50
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
In article
<[email protected] >,
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Let me say this again.
>
> 1600 my ass.
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.dxe5 Bb4+? 6.c3 Bc5 7.Qd5 Bxf2+
> 8.Ke2.
>
> And now the program seems to have frozen up. Ten or so minutes on this
> position where there's only one halfway reasonable move.
>
> (Of course, 8. ... 0-0 9.Qxe4 Bb6 10.Ng5 g6 is winning for white,
> anyway.)
>
> Oh, wait! He moved. He'd rather be down two pieces than one!
>
> 8.... Nxc3+ 9.Nxc3 Qe7 (after a several-minute think) 10.Kxf2
>
> I love it when the computer talks smack from a completely busted
> position.
>
> 10 ... d6 11.ed c6 (wow - first time since move four that it's move in
> the required time.) 12.Bg5 f6 13.Re1+ Ne5 14.Nxe5 15.Rxe5 Qxe5? (the
> computer can't see a mate in four of all checks - Sanny, you might want
> to work on that - I would expect a 1000-rated player to see that Qxe5 is
> forced mate) 16.Qf7+ Kd8 17.Re1+
>
> And the computer resigned.
Typo. The computer's 11th move was cd, not c6. Sorry about that.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:15:42
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
Sanny wrote:
> RECENTLY the Game has been improved and its ratings will be very good.
>
> Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Now it plays in Time it Shows
>
> Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
> Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
> Normal Level: 40-50 Seconds/move. (1800)
>
> Play 3 games with Each level and you will see the difference. Now it is
> playing very good moves.
>
> Start new game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> The improvements were Made Today Only, So you need to play a game
> before giving rating.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM4009&game=Chess
Strategically most 1400 rated humans tend to play better than the
program did in this game. Not only did its king end up being stuck in
the centre, it also ended up with a destroyed pawn structure and
inactive pieces. The first six moves were okay, but afterwards it just
didn't make any move that I thought was particularly good (okay, it did
make a couple of those moves that you obviously have to make, but it
never found any active or tactical ideas and kept on losing pieces).
The game speed was nearly acceptable (but I do have a very fast
computer, so it is probably still pretty slow with anyone with less than
3GHz or so).
A couple of suggestions on how to improve the enjoyment of the game for
the users:
* let the program resign when its position is totally hopeless (e.g.
when it's down by a queen and some other pieces), it was annoyingly slow
in making its moves at that stage
* get rid of the sound effects
* stop that user profile page from popping up all the time
* offer a pgn version of played games (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pgn and
http://www.very-best.de/pgn-spec.htm if you don't know what that is)
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 04:58:39
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Play a game, then Say about Ratings.
|
On 2006-10-14, Sanny wrote:
> RECENTLY the Game has been improved and its ratings will be very good.
>
> Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Now it plays in Time it Shows
>
> Beginner Level: 10-20 Seconds/move (1600)
> Easy Level: 20-30 Seconds/move (1700)
Move 4 on Easy level, and I've already waited more than 15
minutes... ah, it moved: 15:30.
Only 7 minutes for move 5.
Still nowhere near the claimed times.
> Normal Level: 40-50 Seconds/move. (1800)
>
> Play 3 games with Each level and you will see the difference. Now it is
> playing very good moves.
>
> Start new game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> The improvements were Made Today Only, So you need to play a game
> before giving rating.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 23:10:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sanny ovestimates his engine, again.
|
help bot wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> Sheesh! How can you pack 'em together so closely
> without insisting there is no recogniseable difference in
> playing strength?
Perhaps, 1400 1460 1480 1490 1500 is a fairer spread. I notice some
difference between Beginner and Master, but none when moving up/down
one level.
Increasing a chess engine's analysis time from 5s to 10s has more
impact on its results than increasing it from 60s to 120s--the law of
diminishing returns.
> The number of moves it takes to achieve checkmate
> in no way determines strength. The most that can be
> said is that a weak player is more likely to take longer
> to win, due to poor technique. Besides, each game is
> different, resulting in different winning methods and very
> different lengths.
Oh, I know that! :-)
In August, when it was 1300 and he was claiming it was 1500, he said
his engine was strong because I took me 42 moves to beat it. Now it's
perhaps 1400 and he's claiming it's 1600. The more things change, the
more they stay the same.
> Last night (this morning, actually) I was so tired I
> unwittingly left my Queen en prise against Sanny's
> program. "No problemo", as the Terminator would
> say; I eventually won anyway.
Are you serious?? I would like to see that.
I get the feeling, when the computer merely defends planlessly, I
should be able to formulate a plan and destroy it... but that's one of
my weak areas.
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert -- http://likesforests.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:13:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sanny ovestimates his engine, again.
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > Game was playing Passive (I do not understand what it means).
>
> It never made a serious attempt to attack--it passively defended.
>
> > So Now I feel Ratings of the GetClub Game are.
> >
> > Beginner is 1600
> > Easy is 1700
> > Normal is 1800
>
> You feel wrong. If your engine still loses to me on Beginner and Normal
> levels--I have not tried others--it's can't be rated higher than me.
>
> Beginner is 1400
> Easy is 1425
> Normal is 1450
> Master is 1475
Sheesh! How can you pack 'em together so closely
without insisting there is no recogniseable difference in
playing strength?
> > Soon you will be loosing 2/3 Games with Beginner and Easy Levels
>
> In August it took me 42 moves to win. Now it takes 43 moves. If you
> continue at this pace, next October it may take 49 moves.
The number of moves it takes to achieve checkmate
in no way determines strength. The most that can be
said is that a weak player is more likely to take longer
to win, due to poor technique. Besides, each game is
different, resulting in different winning methods and very
different lengths.
----------
Last night (this morning, actually) I was so tired I
unwittingly left my Queen en prise against Sanny's
program. "No problemo", as the Terminator would
say; I eventually won anyway.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:22:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sanny ovestimates his engine, again.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Game was playing Passive (I do not understand what it means).
It never made a serious attempt to attack--it passively defended.
> So Now I feel Ratings of the GetClub Game are.
>
> Beginner is 1600
> Easy is 1700
> Normal is 1800
You feel wrong. If your engine still loses to me on Beginner and Normal
levels--I have not tried others--it's can't be rated higher than me.
Beginner is 1400
Easy is 1425
Normal is 1450
Master is 1475
> Soon you will be loosing 2/3 Games with Beginner and Easy Levels
In August it took me 42 moves to win. Now it takes 43 moves. If you
continue at this pace, next October it may take 49 moves.
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert -- http://likesforests.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 04:19:43
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Game Ratings.
|
> Beginner level took 10-30 seconds per move, close to as promised.
>
> I wouldn't say it put up a serious fight--it was actually quite
> passive--but it certainly put up one heck of a defense. I could believe
> it's 1400 ELO now. I might lose 1/3 games.
At last Time is OK, It was a great problem which has been solved. The
Game was playing Passive (I do not understand what it means). There was
a Bug which was removed may be that you called passive.
Play a game and see http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
So Now I feel Ratings of the GetClub Game are.
Beginner is 1600
Easy is 1700
Normal is 1800
Soon you will be loosing 2/3 Games with Beginner and Easy Levels
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:32:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chess Game improved. (20sec/move now)
|
Sanny wrote:
> Little bit of time managment was done, So that the Program make moves
> in proper time.
Beginner level took 10-30 seconds per move, close to as promised.
I wouldn't say it put up a serious fight--it was actually quite
passive--but it certainly put up one heck of a defense. I could believe
it's 1400 ELO now. I might lose 1/3 games.
[Date "2006.10.12"]
[White "likesforests"]
[WhiteElo "1525"]
[Black "Sanny / 10-30 seconds"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 d5 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd6 5. e4 Nc6 6. d3 Bg4 7. Nb5
Qd8 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nf6 10. Bf4 e5 11. Bg5 Qa5+ 12. Nc3 Nd4 13. Qd1
Bd6 14. Be2 O-O-O 15. O-O Qb6 16. Bg4+ Kb8 17. b3 Be7 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19.
Nd5 Qd6 20. Rb1 h6 21. b4 Bg5 22. bxc5 Qxc5 23. Qa4 Rxd5 24. exd5 Qxd5
25. Qd7 Qxd7 26. Bxd7 Rd8 27. Bg4 f5 28. Bd1 Bd2 29. a4 Rd5 30. Kh1 g6
31. Bb3 Rd6 32. Rfd1 Bf4 33. g3 Bg5 34. h4 Bf6 35. Rdc1 Ne2 36. Rc2 Nd4
37. Rc4 Nf3 38. Rbc1 Rd8 39. R4c3 a6 40. Be6 Rd4 41. Rc7 b6 42. Rh7
Rxd3 43.Rc8#
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert - http://likesforests.blogspot.com/
|
|
