| |
Main
Date: 26 Jun 2006 00:02:41
From: Sanny
Subject: 4 days left to Winner Descision.
|
Jun 2006 winner will be, I suppose Taylor Kingston (won 23 games.)
$5.00
IInd Prize will go to Bonsai (won 17 games) $2.00
IIIrd Prize will go to Joe_Mama (won 12 Games) $1.00
IVth Prize will be for Bob (won 10 Games) $1.00
Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
This month the Prize money is small But if the sponsers agree the Prize
money may be increased in comming months.
The Prize Money will be used to purchase Games. (for next month)
Taylor Kingston will get 40 extra games to play for $5.00
Bonsai will get 16 extra games for $2.00
Joe_Mama and next top 6 will get 8 extra games for $1.00
Only four days left for Prize if you are better then may be you can
change your Ranking in 4 days.
Play with Human opponents also. Atleast 2 games should be won against a
Human Opponent to win the Prize.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 05:59:24
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: zillions light years apart
|
Anonymous Nick uses a word
which
has nothing to do with him:
> [...] credibility.
C R E D I B I L I T Y
The two, "Nick-Null Boobaki" and "credibility"
are zillions light years apart :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-)
Wlod
:-)
Sorry, but it's so funny :-)
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2006 15:37:06
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
[email protected] wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> > > <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
>
> If that were true, perhaps the Subject would have been:
> PING NICK & n_cramer
>
> > > I understand you & Nick are same persons.
> >
> > Again Sanny has shown that he's an idiot.
> > Nick Cramer and I are different persons.
> >
> > > You have two Accounts and you try to fool
> > > arround with people on the groups.
> >
> > It's wrong for Sanny to assert or to imply that the
> > same person has been writing in rec.games.chess.*
> > with both this account and Nick Cramer's account.
> >
> > Nick Cramer and I write independently, and at this
> > time I have not corresponded with him about the
> > subjects of Sanny's chess engine or of Sanny's
> > extremely abusive behaviour.
>
> Nor is there any need to, Nick. I've been enjoying watching you and others
> who have experienced his 'superior' chess engine allow him to continue his
> rants. Quite humorous, actually.
I suspect that some of my usual trolls (such as Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski, who's long been obsessed with his hatred of me)
will declare their admiration of Sanny and his work.
I hope that any such troll, particularly Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski, will invest much of his money to help
Sanny's chess engine enterprise. So by criticising
Sanny, I actually could be doing a favour to Sanny. :-)
> > > Three things
> > >
> > > If your system has crashed how come you posting here?
> >
> > I did *not* write that I had that experience in relation
> > to Sanny's chess engine.
>
> In fact, when I attempted to go to view a game at Sanny's invitation
> (broadcast here, I believe), my computer locked up and the only way I could
> clear it was to shut down and start anew. At 71, I'd call that a crash.
> That was what prompted me to throw my hat in the ring on this subject.
> >
> > > Do not bring excuses.
> >
> > Nick Cramer has the right to respond if he chooses
> > to Sanny's rubbish.
>
> Which I have done.
> >
> > Sanny has long shown that he prefers to bring
> > his countless lies to rec.games.chess.*.
> >
> > > 1. My Program can be played on any System without
> > > any Crashes more than 1000s game have been played
> > > on 100s of different systems.
> >
> > So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
> >
> > > 2. You and Nick are sick people. 100s of people
> > > have played the game without any complaint.
> >
> > So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
> >
> > As I recall, nearly everyone--many diverse players--
> > who has written in rec.games.chess.* about Sanny's
> > chess engine has complained that it's too weak
> > and far too slow.
> >
> > Can Sanny cite any independent player (who's
> > not an employee or friend of Sanny) who has
> > written in rec.games.chess.* that he or she's
> > much impressed by the strength and speed
> > of Sanny's chess engine?
> >
> > When will Sanny's puppets begin writing posts
> > about the 'greatness' of Sanny's chess engine?
> >
> > > If you find the game bad Just do not play it.
> > > I do not want stupids like you to even visit my site.
> >
> > Sanny likes to show off his 'mastery' of English prose.
> >
> > > 3. Stop talking Nonsense.
> > >
> > > The Nonsense Terms you stated previously I mean,
> > > You are stranger to me and better be.
> >
> > I have no wish to make Sanny's acquaintance.
> >
> > > 1. I work for Space Technology in my country.??
> >
> > I have not written that about Sanny.
> >
> > > 2. I told USA have won the Iraq War??
> >
> > I have not written that about Sanny.
> >
> > Sanny, who's nearly illiterate in English, seems
> > not to understand the subjunctive mood in English.
> >
> > In rec.games.chess.misc, I wrote:
> > "*If Sanny were* writing propaganda for the US government,
> > then I suppose that Sanny would be proclaiming every week
> > that the United States has just achieved 'final victory' in Iraq."
> >
> > 'If Sanny were' is a proper use of the subjunctive mood,
> > indicating a contrary-to-fact statement. For the record,
> > I did *not* believe that Sanny was, in fact, 'writing
> > propaganda for the US government'.
>
> Here, as well as in his chess playing ability, I must acknowledge that Nick
> Bourbaki's understanding of English gram far exceeds mine. I learned to
> speak more-or-less properly by rote.
> >
> > > 3. You have shown what family background you Two are from.
> >
> > Sanny's fantasies warrant no response beyond disdain.
> > (Sanny may be disappointed to find out that Nick Cramer
> > and I are not related by blood or by riage.)
>
> Here, I must nit-pick and slightly disagree. It is likely that Nick
> Bourbaki, Nick Cramer and Sanny are all related by blood, perhaps a 1,000,
> 000 years ago or so. (I warned you that I was nit-picking with this!)
> >
> > > You speak nonsense thinking staying far away from
> > > public sitting in on a computer you can speak anything.
> > > A dog barks and thinks he is controlling people on the street. You are
> > > doing the same. Barking on people who even do not want to listen you.
> >
> > Sanny resorts to personal attacks in his attempts to
> > divert attention from the evidence of his shameless lies.
> >
> > > Nick/ n_cramerS You are same person with two accounts.
> >
> > Sanny has no evidence to support his false accusation.
> >
> > > You both have not played a single game on my Program.
> >
> > That's another lie by Sanny.
> >
> > I already have posted my wins (mates in six moves and
> > seven moves) against Sanny's vaunted chess engine.
> >
> > > Still criticizeing a lot. No one in Top 20 Ranking is
> > > shouting like you two who have not won any game.
> >
> > That's another lie by Sanny.
> >
> > As I recall, Taylor Kingston, Bjoern ('Bonsai'),
> > Greg Kennedy ('nomorechess'), and 'likesforests'
> > all have harshly criticised Sanny's chess engine.
> >
> > > Those who are winning are taking Prizes
> > > and those who shouts like you are no good than a street dog.
> >
> > Sanny has revealed his extremely base character.
I believe that some writers in rec.games.chess.* are
more malicious than Sanny. Sanny has been lying for
a commercial purpose rather than to hurt other people
personally.
> And I feel sorry for him, in that he hurts himself more than those he
> attacks. Building up negativity in oneself will ultimately lead to
> physical, mental and emotional problems, as he appears destined to
> discover. I have killfiled him, here and in r.g.c.m.
After enough time, everyone except the most stupid and dishonest
readers should become aware that some writers in RGC* are
worthless, if not also deranged. For example, when Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski writes more of his insults and/or lies to attack Randy
Bauer, Matt Nemmers, or Ken Sloan, they usually don't respond
because they know that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski lacks credibility.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 05:07:26
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
> I'm running a 1.6GHz P4 on a 3mbs DSL connection; there is no
> noticeable lag at this end.
>
It's time to upgrade the System mine is 2.5 GHz system with 512 MB Ram.
So on my computer it plays twice faster.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
There are many games recorded with Beginner level you can see each game
playing in 10-20 seconds Maximum. It plays as good as me.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Only On Fast
Computers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Beginner level plays in 10-20 seconds Maximum /move, Easy to beat it.
Easy level plays in 40-60 seconds Maximum /move, It can save its pieces
well
Normal Level takes 2-3 minutes Maximum / move, It is difficult to beat
it.
Master level takes 5-6 minutes Maximum per move., Only Taylor Kingston,
Bob and Bonsai have beated it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Only On Fast
Computers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 17:22:52
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
On 2006-07-12, Sanny wrote:
>> I'm running a 1.6GHz P4 on a 3mbs DSL connection; there is no
>> noticeable lag at this end.
>
> It's time to upgrade the System mine is 2.5 GHz system with 512 MB Ram.
At <http://www.ludochess.com/jester_eng/jester_eng.html > I can play
against a program that not only plays better, but actually takes
the time it says it will.
> So on my computer it plays twice faster.
If it really plays in the stated time, then it is much more than
twice as fast. That cannot be accounted for by the computer.
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> There are many games recorded with Beginner level you can see each game
> playing in 10-20 seconds Maximum. It plays as good as me.
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Only On Fast
> Computers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> Beginner level plays in 10-20 seconds Maximum /move,
Perhaps, on a VERY fast computer, but I doubt it. That's no excuse
for exceeding the stated times.
> Easy to beat it.
No kidding!
> Easy level plays in 40-60 seconds Maximum /move,
Nowehere close.
> It can save its pieces well
Only against you.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 22:20:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
I am sorry, I thought "Nick Cramer" and "Nick" are same person. Both of
you have Nick as their name and it made me think you are the same
persons.
Again I misread the words that you didnt told me. I read very fast and
come to conclusions very fast.
Since you and "Nick Cramer" are not the same persons, I take back the
sentences I told you and "Nick Cramer". I regret for what I said you
both above.
It was my mistake as I was wrong that you and "Nick Cramer" are same
person.
Bye
Sanny.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 21:57:26
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> "Sanny" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 5 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 21 out of 28 moves
> > took less than 10 seconds.
> >
> > So one can say the game making most of the moves in less than 10
> > seconds
>
> One might say that - but YOU said "All moves made in 10 seconds!"
Well when I visited this game first time, I saw all moves then I
traversed back I saw last 10-15 moves were made in 4-5 seconds And I
turned to see first moves I saw first four moves taking 0 seconds. I
some how missid looking at 5 moves after 5th move which took longer
than 10 seconds.
It is just rough estimate. And remember I showed the link also.
6 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 22 out of 28 moves
took less than 10 seconds. So one can say the game making most of the
moves in less than 10 seconds
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 02:30:23
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
On 2006-07-12, Sanny wrote:
>
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>> "Sanny" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > 5 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 21 out of 28 moves
>> > took less than 10 seconds.
>> >
>> > So one can say the game making most of the moves in less than 10
>> > seconds
>>
>> One might say that - but YOU said "All moves made in 10 seconds!"
>
> Well when I visited this game first time, I saw all moves then I
> traversed back I saw last 10-15 moves were made in 4-5 seconds And I
> turned to see first moves I saw first four moves taking 0 seconds. I
> some how missid looking at 5 moves after 5th move which took longer
> than 10 seconds.
>
> It is just rough estimate. And remember I showed the link also.
>
> 6 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 22 out of 28 moves
> took less than 10 seconds. So one can say the game making most of the
> moves in less than 10 seconds
You cannot say that in general. In my game at beginner level, only
three moves were less than 20 seconds; most of the rest were
at least an order of magnitude longer, most MUCH longer.
I repeat:
Move 3 at beginner level took almost 2 minutes.
Move 4, about 3 minutes
Move 6, 1 minute
Move 7, 3+ minutes
Move 8, 2+ minutes
Move 9, 3.5 minutes
Move 10, 2+ minutes
Move 11, 1.5 minutes
Move 12, 5.5 minutes
I don't want to belittle your accomplishment. Writing a working
chess program is no mean feat, no matter how badly it plays. But
please stop making ridiculous claims for it. Your credibility is
already at low ebb.
[When (if) I finish it, I'll have to put my shell script program
against your Java. Mine is not designed for actual play, but
perhaps it will not be as slow as all that, after all.]
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 13:03:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
> [When (if) I finish it, I'll have to put my shell script program
> against your Java. Mine is not designed for actual play, but perhaps
> it will not be as slow as all that, after all.]
I'm not sure whether the idea of a shell-script chess engine is more
or less sick than something like dc.sed. But I salute you nonetheless.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Simple Incredible Drink (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing juice beverage but
it'll blow your mind and it has no
moving parts!
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 15:48:04
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
Sanny wrote:
> <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
> I understand you & Nick are same persons.
Again Sanny has shown that he's an idiot.
Nick Cramer and I are different persons.
> You have two Accounts and you try to fool
> arround with people on the groups.
It's wrong for Sanny to assert or to imply that the
same person has been writing in rec.games.chess.*
with both this account and Nick Cramer's account.
Nick Cramer and I write independently, and at this
time I have not corresponded with him about the
subjects of Sanny's chess engine or of Sanny's
extremely abusive behaviour.
> Three things
>
> If your system has crashed how come you posting here?
I did *not* write that I had that experience in relation
to Sanny's chess engine.
> Do not bring excuses.
Nick Cramer has the right to respond if he chooses
to Sanny's rubbish.
Sanny has long shown that he prefers to bring
his countless lies to rec.games.chess.*.
> 1. My Program can be played on any System without
> any Crashes more than 1000s game have been played
> on 100s of different systems.
So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
> 2. You and Nick are sick people. 100s of people
> have played the game without any complaint.
So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
As I recall, nearly everyone--many diverse players--
who has written in rec.games.chess.* about Sanny's
chess engine has complained that it's too weak
and far too slow.
Can Sanny cite any independent player (who's
not an employee or friend of Sanny) who has
written in rec.games.chess.* that he or she's
much impressed by the strength and speed
of Sanny's chess engine?
When will Sanny's puppets begin writing posts
about the 'greatness' of Sanny's chess engine?
> If you find the game bad Just do not play it.
> I do not want stupids like you to even visit my site.
Sanny likes to show off his 'mastery' of English prose.
> 3. Stop talking Nonsense.
>
> The Nonsense Terms you stated previously I mean,
> You are stranger to me and better be.
I have no wish to make Sanny's acquaintance.
> 1. I work for Space Technology in my country.??
I have not written that about Sanny.
> 2. I told USA have won the Iraq War??
I have not written that about Sanny.
Sanny, who's nearly illiterate in English, seems
not to understand the subjunctive mood in English.
In rec.games.chess.misc, I wrote:
"*If Sanny were* writing propaganda for the US government,
then I suppose that Sanny would be proclaiming every week
that the United States has just achieved 'final victory' in Iraq."
'If Sanny were' is a proper use of the subjunctive mood,
indicating a contrary-to-fact statement. For the record,
I did *not* believe that Sanny was, in fact, 'writing
propaganda for the US government'.
> 3. You have shown what family background you Two are from.
Sanny's fantasies warrant no response beyond disdain.
(Sanny may be disappointed to find out that Nick Cramer
and I are not related by blood or by riage.)
> You speak nonsense thinking staying far away from
> public sitting in on a computer you can speak anything.
> A dog barks and thinks he is controlling people on the street. You are
> doing the same. Barking on people who even do not want to listen you.
Sanny resorts to personal attacks in his attempts to
divert attention from the evidence of his shameless lies.
> Nick/ n_cramerS You are same person with two accounts.
Sanny has no evidence to support his false accusation.
> You both have not played a single game on my Program.
That's another lie by Sanny.
I already have posted my wins (mates in six moves and
seven moves) against Sanny's vaunted chess engine.
> Still criticizeing a lot. No one in Top 20 Ranking is
> shouting like you two who have not won any game.
That's another lie by Sanny.
As I recall, Taylor Kingston, Bjoern ('Bonsai'),
Greg Kennedy ('nomorechess'), and 'likesforests'
all have harshly criticised Sanny's chess engine.
> Those who are winning are taking Prizes
> and those who shouts like you are no good than a street dog.
Sanny has revealed his extremely base character.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 08:26:26
From:
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
> > <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
If that were true, perhaps the Subject would have been:
PING NICK & n_cramer
> > I understand you & Nick are same persons.
>
> Again Sanny has shown that he's an idiot.
> Nick Cramer and I are different persons.
>
> > You have two Accounts and you try to fool
> > arround with people on the groups.
>
> It's wrong for Sanny to assert or to imply that the
> same person has been writing in rec.games.chess.*
> with both this account and Nick Cramer's account.
>
> Nick Cramer and I write independently, and at this
> time I have not corresponded with him about the
> subjects of Sanny's chess engine or of Sanny's
> extremely abusive behaviour.
Nor is there any need to, Nick. I've been enjoying watching you and others
who have experienced his 'superior' chess engine allow him to continue his
rants. Quite humorous, actually.
>
> > Three things
> >
> > If your system has crashed how come you posting here?
>
> I did *not* write that I had that experience in relation
> to Sanny's chess engine.
In fact, when I attempted to go to view a game at Sanny's invitation
(broadcast here, I believe), my computer locked up and the only way I could
clear it was to shut down and start anew. At 71, I'd call that a crash.
That was what prompted me to throw my hat in the ring on this subject.
>
> > Do not bring excuses.
>
> Nick Cramer has the right to respond if he chooses
> to Sanny's rubbish.
Which I have done.
>
> Sanny has long shown that he prefers to bring
> his countless lies to rec.games.chess.*.
>
> > 1. My Program can be played on any System without
> > any Crashes more than 1000s game have been played
> > on 100s of different systems.
>
> So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
>
> > 2. You and Nick are sick people. 100s of people
> > have played the game without any complaint.
>
> So says Sanny, a shameless liar.
>
> As I recall, nearly everyone--many diverse players--
> who has written in rec.games.chess.* about Sanny's
> chess engine has complained that it's too weak
> and far too slow.
>
> Can Sanny cite any independent player (who's
> not an employee or friend of Sanny) who has
> written in rec.games.chess.* that he or she's
> much impressed by the strength and speed
> of Sanny's chess engine?
>
> When will Sanny's puppets begin writing posts
> about the 'greatness' of Sanny's chess engine?
>
> > If you find the game bad Just do not play it.
> > I do not want stupids like you to even visit my site.
>
> Sanny likes to show off his 'mastery' of English prose.
>
> > 3. Stop talking Nonsense.
> >
> > The Nonsense Terms you stated previously I mean,
> > You are stranger to me and better be.
>
> I have no wish to make Sanny's acquaintance.
>
> > 1. I work for Space Technology in my country.??
>
> I have not written that about Sanny.
>
> > 2. I told USA have won the Iraq War??
>
> I have not written that about Sanny.
>
> Sanny, who's nearly illiterate in English, seems
> not to understand the subjunctive mood in English.
>
> In rec.games.chess.misc, I wrote:
> "*If Sanny were* writing propaganda for the US government,
> then I suppose that Sanny would be proclaiming every week
> that the United States has just achieved 'final victory' in Iraq."
>
> 'If Sanny were' is a proper use of the subjunctive mood,
> indicating a contrary-to-fact statement. For the record,
> I did *not* believe that Sanny was, in fact, 'writing
> propaganda for the US government'.
Here, as well as in his chess playing ability, I must acknowledge that Nick
Bourbaki's understanding of English gram far exceeds mine. I learned to
speak more-or-less properly by rote.
>
> > 3. You have shown what family background you Two are from.
>
> Sanny's fantasies warrant no response beyond disdain.
> (Sanny may be disappointed to find out that Nick Cramer
> and I are not related by blood or by riage.)
Here, I must nit-pick and slightly disagree. It is likely that Nick
Bourbaki, Nick Cramer and Sanny are all related by blood, perhaps a 1,000,
000 years ago or so. (I warned you that I was nit-picking with this!)
>
> > You speak nonsense thinking staying far away from
> > public sitting in on a computer you can speak anything.
> > A dog barks and thinks he is controlling people on the street. You are
> > doing the same. Barking on people who even do not want to listen you.
>
> Sanny resorts to personal attacks in his attempts to
> divert attention from the evidence of his shameless lies.
>
> > Nick/ n_cramerS You are same person with two accounts.
>
> Sanny has no evidence to support his false accusation.
>
> > You both have not played a single game on my Program.
>
> That's another lie by Sanny.
>
> I already have posted my wins (mates in six moves and
> seven moves) against Sanny's vaunted chess engine.
>
> > Still criticizeing a lot. No one in Top 20 Ranking is
> > shouting like you two who have not won any game.
>
> That's another lie by Sanny.
>
> As I recall, Taylor Kingston, Bjoern ('Bonsai'),
> Greg Kennedy ('nomorechess'), and 'likesforests'
> all have harshly criticised Sanny's chess engine.
>
> > Those who are winning are taking Prizes
> > and those who shouts like you are no good than a street dog.
>
> Sanny has revealed his extremely base character.
And I feel sorry for him, in that he hurts himself more than those he
attacks. Building up negativity in oneself will ultimately lead to
physical, mental and emotional problems, as he appears destined to
discover. I have killfiled him, here and in r.g.c.m.
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 12:58:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sanny wrote:
>>> <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
>
> If that were true, perhaps the Subject would have been:
> PING NICK & n_cramer
If that were true, perhaps the message would have been sent by E-mail
to you two Nicks, rather than broadcast right around the world?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aquatic Radioactive Car (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-performance luxury car
but it'll make you glow in the dark
and it lives in the sea!
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 20:08:34
From:
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sanny wrote:
> >>> <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
> >
> > If that were true, perhaps the Subject would have been:
> > PING NICK & n_cramer
>
> If that were true, perhaps the message would have been sent by E-mail
> to you two Nicks, rather than broadcast right around the world?
With all due respect, Dave, NO!
While my From: [email protected] requires only minimal change to
send me an e-mail, doing so may well be considered by me as an invasion of
privacy. Unsolicited e-mails from hostile or abusive people are not welcome
by me and I do report them to their ISP and NewsService, as well as
advising them, directly, to cease and desist. In the case of one
particularly persistant and obnoxious individual, who lives here in
California, I also reported him to the California government (I think it
was our Attorney General, but it's been a while). Shortly thereafter, I
ceased hearing from him.
I do, however, enjoy exchanging e-mails with people such as yourself, David
Richerby, and Nick Bourbaki, with both of whom I may occasionally disagree,
but whose demeanor and intelligence always shines through.
Now, piss off! ;-D
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 03:44:15
From: Sanny
Subject: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
<<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------- >
I understand you & Nick are same persons. You have two Accounts and you
try to fool arround with people on the groups.
Three things
If your system has crashed how come you posting here? Do not bring
excuses.
1. My Program can be played on any System without any Crashes more than
1000s game have been played on 100s of different systems.
2. You and Nick are sick people. 100s of people have played the game
without any complaint. If you find the game bad Just do not play it. I
do not want stupids like you to even visit my site.
3. Stop talking Nonsense.
The Nonsense Terms you stated previously I mean , You are stranger to
me and better be.
1. I work for Space Technology in my country.??
2. I told USA have won the Iraq War??
3. You have shown what family background you Two are from. You speak
nonsense thinking staying far away from public sitting in on a computer
you can speak anything.
A dog barks and thinks he is controlling people on the street. You are
doing the same. Barking on people who even do not want to listen you.
Nick/ n_cramerS You are same person with two accounts. You both have
not played a single game on my Program. Still criticizeing a lot. No
one in Top 20 Ranking is shouting like you two who have not won any
game.
Those who are winning are taking Prizes and those who shouts like you
are no good than a street dog.
Bye
Sanny.
<<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------- >
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 07:52:54
From:
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <<<<-----------This message is only for NICK & n_cramerS -------->
>
> I understand you & Nick are same persons. You have two Accounts and you
> try to fool arround with people on the groups.
>
> Three things
>
> If your system has crashed how come you posting here? Do not bring
> excuses.
[ . . . ]
You poor deluded fool. If you had a shred of reading comprehension, it
would be clear to you that Nick Bourbaki and I have two distinctly
different ways of expressing ourselves and have on occasion been at odds
over certain issues.
As far as your ad hominum attacks on me, they have earned you a permanent
place in my killfile on all r.g.c.* NG's to which I subscribe. Have a nice
day.
PLONK!
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 13:01:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> You poor deluded fool. If you had a shred of reading comprehension,
> it would be clear to you that Nick Bourbaki and I have two
> distinctly different ways of expressing ourselves and have on
> occasion been at odds over certain issues.
Maybe that's just a ploy to convince us you're different people? ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Spoon (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ piece of cutlery but it's completely
transparent!
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 20:22:57
From:
Subject: Re: Nick and n_cramerS seems to be same person.
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You poor deluded fool. If you had a shred of reading comprehension,
> > it would be clear to you that Nick Bourbaki and I have two
> > distinctly different ways of expressing ourselves and have on
> > occasion been at odds over certain issues.
>
> Maybe that's just a ploy to convince us you're different people? ;-)
Barb noted. To quote Tomson Calvin, 1579, "It is very hard for us not to be
grieved, when we hear ourselves so evil spoken of, and men goad us." ;-)
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 00:36:45
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
If you want even faster games (taking less than 10 seconds per move)
then Play with Human Players.
Yesterday "Nomorechess" played with "Patidar".
Nomorechess beated Patidar with Black pieces and the game is recorded
below.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1804&game=Chess
Human Opponents can play the game at Bullet speed. You can make a move
quite fast when playing with human opponents as in this game.
In the game between "Nomorechess" and "Patidar" many moves were made in
just 2 seconds.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 00:34:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
5 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 21 out of 28 moves
took less than 10 seconds.
So one can say the game making most of the moves in less than 10
seconds
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 00:09:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
[email protected] wrote:
> > For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
> > !!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
> > So Beginner level makes moves in 10 seconds.
> >
> at socalled lightning or bullet time controls
> this still is quite *slow*..
If you want a Bullet Game Play with Human Players.
Yesterday "Nomorechess" played with "Patidar" with.
Nomorechess beated Patidar with Black pieces and the game is recorded
below.
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1804&game=Chess
Human Opponents can play the game at Bullet speed. You can make a move
quite fast when playing with human opponents as in this game.
In the game between "Nomorechess" and "Patidar" many moves were made in
just 2 seconds.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 23:50:10
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
Here is a RECORDED GAME between BEGINNER LEVEL and BONSAI.
!!!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1849&game=Chess
!!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
So Beginner level makes moves in 10 seconds.
However if you have slow computer or your Internet Connection is poor
then computer may take more time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 09:13:46
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
>
> Here is a RECORDED GAME between BEGINNER LEVEL and BONSAI.
>
> !!!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
>
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1849&game=Chess
>
> !!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
Where do you get that idea from???
The program's moves 5-10 all took longer than that, unless the unit
given in your game records is not seconds.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 08:53:40
From:
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
> For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
> !!!!! All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
> So Beginner level makes moves in 10 seconds.
>
at socalled lightning or bullet time controls
this still is quite *slow*..
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 23:48:38
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
Here is a RECORDED GAME between BEGINNER LEVEL and BONSAI.
All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1849&game=Chess
All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
So Beginner level makes moves in 10 seconds.
However if you have slow computer or your Internet Connection is poor
then computer may take more time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 14:08:01
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
On 2006-07-11, Sanny wrote:
> For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
>
> Here is a RECORDED GAME between BEGINNER LEVEL and BONSAI.
>
> All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
>
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1849&game=Chess
>
> All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
>
> So Beginner level makes moves in 10 seconds.
Move 3 at beginner level took almost 2 minutes.
Move 4, about 3 minutes
Move 6, 1 minute
Move 7, 3+ minutes
Move 8, 2+ minutes
Move 9, 3.5 minutes
Move 10, 2+ minutes
Move 11, 1.5 minutes
Move 12, 5.5 minutes
You must be playing a different program. How about putting that
one on line?
> However if you have slow computer or your Internet Connection is poor
> then computer may take more time.
I'm running a 1.6GHz P4 on a 3mbs DSL connection; there is no
noticeable lag at this end.
BTW, is the STOP button supposed to turn off those godawful
souinds? If so, it doesn't work; if not, how do you do it?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 07:30:32
From:
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote:
> For all those who think Game takes lot of time.
>
> Here is a RECORDED GAME between BEGINNER LEVEL and BONSAI.
>
> All moves were made in 10 seconds. !!!!!
>
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1849&game=Chess
Interesting. I went to check the game out and it crashed my Win 98.
Unusual. I won't be back!
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 23:40:30
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
I feel you were playing with Higher Levels, If you want a fast game try
lower levels.
Thanks
Sanny.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 13:29:15
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
On 2006-07-11, Sanny wrote:
> I feel you were playing with Higher Levels,
Are you referring to my post? Please include context so we know
what you are talking about.
If you were referring to my post, please note that I said "easy
level".
I played a second game at normal level; the time it took seemed to
be about the same (I wasn't paying attention), but the quality of
play was little or no higher.
> If you want a fast game try lower levels.
My grandson (<5 weeks old) could probably beat the only lower level
there is.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 16:27:52
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
(Some of the context was snipped by Sanny.)
> > > Nomorechess has beated Normal level only once .
> > > He have played only with Easy & Beginner levels.
> > >
> > > And you Nick has not played a single game
Sanny has not admitted that his statement is false.
> Nick wrote:
> > In fact, I have posted two of my games against Sanny's chess
> > engine, when I mated it in six moves and in seven moves.
>
> You played only 2 games a month ago with beginner level when the
> game was having lots of bug and since you have not played any game
> currently. So it shows you do not know how the game is playing Now.
That's another false statement by Sanny.
By observing other players' recent games (which have
been posted in rec.games.chess.*), I can assess how
poorly Sanny's chess engine has been playing recently.
When I mated Sanny's chess engine in six moves and
in seven moves, as I recall, Sanny was still boasting
about his chess engine's supposed excellence.
> > > If you want to criticize show me the Recorded games.
> >
> > I do not have to do anything more to prove
> > that Sanny's chess engine is rubbish.
>
> You can write 100s of things but cannot give your username by which you
> played games As actually you have played not a single game in a month.
I prefer not to register at a website run by
a con man such as Sanny.
> > > I wonder how you can criticize about Easy/Normal
> > > levels without even playing with them.
> >
> > By observing other players' games at those levels
> > I can assess the strength of Sanny's chess engine,
> > and I already know that I am stronger than that.
>
> By observing others game, Then tell me which games you
> observed that made you feel the game is playing bad.
The same games that have convinced many other
writers that Sanny's chess engine is playing horribly.
Those games have been posted in rec.games.chess.*
It's ludicrous for Sanny to make any attempt to insinuate
that I am the only writer here who's convinced that his
chess engine is rubbish.
> > Why does Sanny apparently presume that I must
> > be much weaker than his vaunted chess engine?
>
> Definitely not, I believe you may be better than my game
> but the point is you are not showing the recorded games
> where you are finding mistakes.
How much more evidence does Sanny demand before
he will admit that his chess engine's extremely weak?
Let's suppose that Sanny has a fantasy that he's
a great boxer. Sanny proceeds to enter amateur
boxing events, and he's quickly knocked out in
every fight. But Sanny still believes that he's a
great boxer, and he tells everyone that they have
to believe that he's a great boxer until they fight
him and knock him out.
> The game speed has been increased recently. Now it plays
> quite fast. Play a game with Beginner Level and see for yourself.
I recently did see for myself. Sanny's chess engine
was impractically slow at that level, given that I do
not have hours to waste.
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> >
> > > If you have won even a single game with Normal level tell me your
> > > username and let me see if you have ever beated the Normal level.
> > > And if any mistake is found in the game that will be removed.
> >
> > I prefer not to waste my time acting as Sanny's unpaid
> > assistant in debugging his absymal chess engine.
>
> If you do not have time for play then how you know
> that the game is bad?
I can assess the evidence of other players' games.
> I feel you are very frustrated person.
In this case, I am frustrated only by Sanny's
extreme ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, and
dishonesty.
> I am sorry for the troubles you are facing in your life.
At least my troubles do not include Sanny's
abysmal comprehension of chess and of
computer chess programming.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 23:00:35
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
> It does routniely massively exceed the timelimits that are promised.
Now it will play in reasionable time.
> 1. As in this game, it still takes pieces with its king that are
> protected by other pieces:
Problem Rectified.
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
So now the Game has everything you were looking for. If still you find
anything wrong let me know it.
Now The game is playing like an Intelligent Player.
Bye
Sanny
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 09:09:33
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
On 2006-07-10, Sanny wrote:
>> It does routniely massively exceed the timelimits that are promised.
>
> Now it will play in reasionable time.
I don't consider 15 minutes for move 5 at easy level anything
like reasonable.
1. f4 e5
2. fxe5 d6
3. exd6 Bxd6
4. Nf3 g5
5. d4 f6 {15 mins}
6. e4 Bg4 {6 mins}
7. Bc4 Nc6 {14 mins}
8. O-O Nge7 {10 mins}
9. c3 Bf4 {21 mins}
10. Bxf4 gxf4 {4 mins}
11. Qc1 Qd6 {10 mins}
12. Nh4 Na5 {7 mins}
13. Rxf4 Nxc4 {8 mins}
14. Rxg4 b5 {8 mins}
15. Nd2 Qd7 {10 mins}
16. Rf4 O-O {5 mins}
17. Nxc4 bxc4 {3 mins}
18. Qf1 Qe6 {7 mins}
19. Re1 c5 {4 mins}
20. Nf5 Nxf5 {2 mins}
21. exf5 Qd5 {5 mins}
22. Re7 h5 {6 mins}
23. Qe2 {...30 minutes and waiting}
I need some sleep. I'll what it has done when I wake up.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 15:46:17
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
On 2006-07-10, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-07-10, Sanny wrote:
>>> It does routniely massively exceed the timelimits that are promised.
>>
>> Now it will play in reasionable time.
>
> I don't consider 15 minutes for move 5 at easy level anything
> like reasonable.
>
> 1. f4 e5
> 2. fxe5 d6
> 3. exd6 Bxd6
> 4. Nf3 g5
> 5. d4 f6 {15 mins}
> 6. e4 Bg4 {6 mins}
> 7. Bc4 Nc6 {14 mins}
> 8. O-O Nge7 {10 mins}
> 9. c3 Bf4 {21 mins}
> 10. Bxf4 gxf4 {4 mins}
> 11. Qc1 Qd6 {10 mins}
> 12. Nh4 Na5 {7 mins}
> 13. Rxf4 Nxc4 {8 mins}
> 14. Rxg4 b5 {8 mins}
> 15. Nd2 Qd7 {10 mins}
> 16. Rf4 O-O {5 mins}
> 17. Nxc4 bxc4 {3 mins}
> 18. Qf1 Qe6 {7 mins}
> 19. Re1 c5 {4 mins}
> 20. Nf5 Nxf5 {2 mins}
> 21. exf5 Qd5 {5 mins}
> 22. Re7 h5 {6 mins}
> 23. Qe2 {...30 minutes and waiting}
>
> I need some sleep. I'll what it has done when I wake up.
23. ... Rfb8 {45+ mins}
24. Qxh5 Kf8 {?? I was sleeping}
25. Rfe4 Qxe4 {15 minutes}
26. Qf7#
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 02:19:54
From:
Subject: Re: Now it does not take lot of time
|
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 2006-07-10, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On 2006-07-10, Sanny wrote:
> >>> It does routniely massively exceed the timelimits that are promised.
> >>
> >> Now it will play in reasionable time.
> >[ . . . ]
> 23. ... Rfb8 {45+ mins}
> 24. Qxh5 Kf8 {?? I was sleeping}
> 25. Rfe4 Qxe4 {15 minutes}
> 26. Qf7#
As in the other games I have played through, it continues to appear that
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. I'm beginning to think that even I could
beat your game, Sanny. But I have anything better to do with my time!
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 22:06:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Game Speed Increased with Major Improvements.
|
Now the Game speed has been improved. The game finishes in time
The king now does not make any illegal move during Mate.
Beginner Level: A fast game
Easy Level: OK OK
Normal Level: Good game
Master Level: Very Tough game
Advance: Devils game
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Bye
Sanny.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 21:56:55
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
> > Nomorechess has beated Normal level only once .
> > He have played only with Easy & Beginner levels.
> >
> > And you Nick has not played a single game
>
> In fact, I have posted two of my games against Sanny's chess
> engine, when I mated it in six moves and in seven moves.
You played only 2 games a month ago with beginner level when the game
was having lots of bug and since you have not played any game
currently. So it shows you do not know how the game is playing Now.
> > If you want to criticize show me the Recorded games.
>
> I do not have to do anything more to prove
> that Sanny's chess engine is rubbish.
>
You can write 100s of things but cannot give your username by which you
played games As actually you have played not a single game in a month.
> > I wonder how you can criticize about Easy/Normal
> > levels without even playing with them.
>
> By observing other players' games at those levels
> I can assess the strength of Sanny's chess engine,
> and I already know that I am stronger than that.
>
By observing others game, Then tell me which games you observed that
made you feel the game is playing bad.
> Why does Sanny apparently presume that I must
> be much weaker than his vaunted chess engine?
Definitely not, I believe you may be better than my game but the point
is you are not showing the recorded games where you are finding
mistakes.
The game speed has been increased recently. Now it plays quite fast.
Play a game with Beginner Level and see for yourself.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> > If you have won even a single game with Normal level tell me your
> > username and let me see if you have ever beated the Normal level.
> > And if any mistake is found in the game that will be removed.
>
> I prefer not to waste my time acting as Sanny's unpaid
> assistant in debugging his absymal chess engine.
If you do not have time for play then how you know that the game is
bad?
I feel you are very frustrated person. I am sorry for the troubles you
are facing in your life. God Bless you.
Bye
Sanny.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 18:48:29
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> See yesterday Bonsai beated the Master level in 4-5 hours
> (The game was recorded).
>
> So Normal Level game can be completed in 3-4 hours.
> Easy level game in 2-3 hours.
> Beginner Level game can be completed in 1-2 hours.
Some of us have better things to do than to waste hours
of our time with Sanny's extremely weak chess engine,
which evidently continues to make illegal moves.
The fact that Sanny's chess engine makes illegal moves
has not stopped Sanny from boasting about his chess
engine's supposed greatness.
> I and my friends find the Beginner level very difficult to win.
That shows only that Sanny and his friends are extremely
weak players.
> You can see the recorded games
> Only Taylor Kingston, Bob and Bonsai have won with Master Level.
Few persons have so much time to waste on Sanny's chess engine.
> Nomorechess has beated Normal level only once .
> He have played only with Easy & Beginner levels.
>
> And you Nick has not played a single game
That's another false statement by Sanny, whom I expect will
continue to lie shamelessly, as he has been doing for months.
In fact, I have posted two of my games against Sanny's chess
engine, when I mated it in six moves and in seven moves.
> but you are criticizing a lot.
Sanny's nearly illiterate in English, so I hope that
he can understand that I regard him as extremely
ignorant, stupid, arrogant, and dishonest.
I regard Sanny's chess engine enterprise
as nothing more than a con man's game.
> If you want to criticize show me the Recorded games.
I do not have to do anything more to prove
that Sanny's chess engine is rubbish.
> I wonder how you can criticize about Easy/Normal
> levels without even playing with them.
By observing other players' games at those levels
I can assess the strength of Sanny's chess engine,
and I already know that I am stronger than that.
Why does Sanny apparently presume that I must
be much weaker than his vaunted chess engine?
> If you have won even a single game with Normal level tell me your
> username and let me see if you have ever beated the Normal level.
> And if any mistake is found in the game that will be removed.
I prefer not to waste my time acting as Sanny's unpaid
assistant in debugging his absymal chess engine.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 01:23:55
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
>
> Breaking the rules of chess makes your game look amateurish. A few
> folks have complained about it. Nobody's said they like it.
>
> The rules say, "If a player's king is placed in check and there is no
> legal move that player can make to escape check, then the king is said
> to be checkmated, the game ends, and that player loses."
Ok now it will not break this rule needed updation done.
Now if the King is attacked at a place it will resign instead of
putting its king at a place where opponent can kills it.
Please test it by winning a game as I can never win a game with it.
(Even with the Beginner level)
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 12:23:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Please test it by winning a game as I can never win a game with it.
> (Even with the Beginner level)
There are many freely available chess engines that play quite a strong
game. You could easily get one of those to play against your
computer. Even if you can't do it automatically, you can relay moves
from one to the other.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Erotic Evil Radio (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a radio but it's genuinely evil and
genuinely erotic!
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 00:21:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> And the illegal move you are talking about is only Last move when the
> King is Mated. It has been done, So that the Player gets the feeling
> that he has really killed the King.
Breaking the rules of chess makes your game look amateurish. A few
folks have complained about it. Nobody's said they like it.
The rules say, "If a player's king is placed in check and there is no
legal move that player can make to escape check, then the king is said
to be checkmated, the game ends, and that player loses."
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 00:05:36
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
And the illegal move you are talking about is only Last move when the
King is Mated. It has been done, So that the Player gets the feeling
that he has really killed the King.
As it would look absurd when player has not seen mate in 1/2 and
computer finishes the game in between as the computer has seen a mate
in 2/3.
May be the player is unable to see the Mate and makes a wrong move
giving a win to Computer.
Bye
Sanny
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 00:00:21
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
See yesterday Bonsai beated the Master level in 4-5 hours (The game was
recorded).
So Normal Level game can be completed in 3-4 hours.
Easy level game in 2-3 hours.
Beginner Level game can be completed in 1-2 hours.
I and my friends find the Beginner level very difficult to win. You can
see the recorded games
Only Taylor Kingston, Bob and Bonsai have won with Master Level.
Nomorechess has beated Normal level only once . He have played only
with Easy & Beginner levels.
And you Nick has not played a single game but you are criticizing a
lot. If you want to criticize show me the Recorded games.
I wonder how you can criticize about Easy/Normal levels without even
playing with them.
If you have won even a single game with Normal level tell me your
username and let me see if you have ever beated the Normal level. And
if any mistake is found in the game that will be removed.
Bye
Sanny.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2006 13:07:12
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> See yesterday Bonsai beated the Master level in 4-5 hours (The game was
> recorded).
Note: that was 43 moves
According to your programs timekeeping the computer took a total of 2h
8min 10s (while I took 36 minutes - of which a lot was time during which
I was doing something else and didn't notice the program had moved, half
of my moves were in under 20s), that is on average 3 minutes per move
instead of the 2 minutes the master level allegedly takes.
Additionally this is slightly skewed, because towards the end of the
game when the computer simply doesn't have many options anymore, he
moves faster. Up to move 26, after which it just was about actually
mating the computer in a trivial endgame, the computer actually used 1h
55min 10s, that is 4 1/2 minutes per move.
23 of the program's moves took longer than the official 2min
18 took longer than 3min
12 moves longer than 4min
7 longer than 5min
4 longer than 7min
3 longer than 8min
2 longer than 9min
1 longer than 10min
In fact the program tends to take ages even when it just has a single
legal move, why on earth do you not just get it to make that move???
> If you have won even a single game with Normal level tell me your
> username and let me see if you have ever beated the Normal level. And
> if any mistake is found in the game that will be removed.
I am a bit confused by your notion of "removing mistakes" when it comes
to the quality of the actual play. It should be easy enough to do when
the program just makes illegal moves, but how do you believe you can do
that for strategic or tactical mistakes?
The only way one gets the program to play decent opening moves is when
it can follow its book, left to its own devices it immediately plays
moves like 4...g5?? or 5...f6?? (3...e6?! was just inaccurate, but not
terribly wrong). After the first 5 moves the game was already won for white.
And when it's defending bad positions it does not put up a good
resistance, it tends to do random useless things like 6...h5?!,
10...Kg7?! or swap off its own only active piece 11...Bxc3 etc.
> I found 13. Bd2 b5 14. Qg4 Nc6??
>
> 13 .... b5 was made to take out the Bishop from c7
Maybe there's a point to trying to develop that bishop in that way, but
the program basically totally ignored all my threats and as one can see
it never got around to developing the bishop.
> 14 ......Nc6 was the only move (Piece Development move)
Actually, 14...Nc6 is a disasterous move, when I actually looked at the
game in detail, I realised I overlooked another quick mate at this
point, namely 15.Qxg5+ Kf8 16.Qf4+ Nf6 17.Qxf6+ Kg8 18.Qf7#. In fact
this mate should be really easy to spot for a computer.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 15:01:10
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> Thanks Nick for finding problems with GetClub Game.
> Could you explain the games you played (Recorded games)
> Where you found it is not playing good.
I prefer not to waste more of my time with someone
as evidently arrogant and dishonest as Sanny.
> I agree 2 months back the game was horrible.
For many months, even when he now admits that his
chess engine was 'horrible', Sanny has been writing
the same ludicrous propaganda to extol his chess
engine that he writes now to extol his chess engine.
> But now the Programmers have rectified
> all the problems the Players face.
That's a false statement, which shows both
Sanny's arrogance and his unwillingness to listen
seriously to the criticisms of his chess engine.
Evidently, Sanny and his programmers cannot
yet make a chess engine that always makes
legal moves.
> Now the game plays better than ever.
That statement could be true, but it's practically
meaningless given that Sanny's chess engine
continues to be extremely weak and extremely
slow.
> Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Play a game with Beginner Level if you want a fast game
That's another false statement by Sanny.
In my last attempts to play games at that level,
Sanny's chess engine, by move four, spent more
than ten minutes without making another move.
> Play a game with Easy level if you want Challenges
Such as being 'challenged' by not falling asleep?
> Play a game with Normal level if you are Strong player.
How could a player as extremely weak as Sanny
be able to recognise a 'strong player'?
> Leave Master Level for Bob and Taylor Kingston.
> As only they can beat it.
That's another false statement by Sanny, who
evidently understands almost nothing about
chess, chess engines, and chess players.
Why do I object so strongly to Sanny?
If Sanny were simply a bumbling ignorant
amateur chess programming enthusiast,
then I would show more tolerance of him.
But, evidently as part of an intended commercial
venture, Sanny has brought out a chess engine
that's just rubbish--it's the worst chess engine
by far that I have ever played. And Sanny has
been making many ludicrously disingenuous
statements to promote his chess engine.
I hope that no one's ever foolish enough to
pay any money to play Sanny's chess engine.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 22:33:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Thanks Nick for finding problems with GetClub Game.
Could you explain the games you played (Recorded games) Where you found
it is not playing good.
I agree 2 months back the game was horrible. But now the Programmers
have rectified all the problems the Players face.
Now the game plays better than ever.
Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Play a game with Beginner Level if you want a fast game
Play a game with Easy level if you want Challenges
Play a game with Normal level if you are Strong player.
Leave Master Level for Bob and Taylor Kingston. As only they can beat
it.
Bye
Sanny.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 10:24:31
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> Thanks Nick for finding problems with GetClub Game.
>
> Could you explain the games you played (Recorded games) Where you found
> it is not playing good.
>
> I agree 2 months back the game was horrible. But now the Programmers
> have rectified all the problems the Players face.
>
> Now the game plays better than ever.
>
> Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Play a game with Beginner Level if you want a fast game
>
> Play a game with Easy level if you want Challenges
>
> Play a game with Normal level if you are Strong player.
>
> Leave Master Level for Bob and Taylor Kingston. As only they can beat
> it.
>
> Bye
> Sanny.
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
It does routniely massively exceed the timelimits that are promised.
But much worse is that it still doesn't not follow the rules of the game.
1. As in this game, it still takes pieces with its king that are
protected by other pieces:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM1732&game=Chess
2. The last time it actually managed to get a pawn to the first or eigth
rank it actually did not promote the pawn! (haven't allowed it to try
that recently, but as problem 1 still persists this problem may also
still be there)
3. It does not record the mating move in games and pretends the game
ended a half-move earlier.
And really, everyone can beat the mast level. It is not actually much
better than the other levels, as far as I can figure out you just give
the mast level much more time. But as long as the computer is so awfully
inefficient at using its time
(hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-beta_pruning )
and does not have a decent positional evaluation algorithm, this bit of
extra time does not actually result in it playing much better. The only
reason why not too many people beat it (I only bothered to do that once
and it took a whole world cup match, because the computer was sooooo
sloooooow) is, because it just takes too long.
--Bj�rn
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 16:50:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Sanny wrote:
> Yes thats your choice.
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Sanny's chess engine is the worst by far that I have ever played.
I find it hard to believe that supposedly professional computer
programmers are responsible for Sanny's chess engine.
I would suggest that (to help slow down the arms race)
those people be assigned to develop weapons for the
armed forces of Sanny's country.
> You can get the money or use that money in buying more games.
> To score better.
Only the most ignorant players would waste their time
by practising with Sanny's chess engine when there's a
much stronger and much faster free online chess engine.
> $1.00 and $5.00 is nothing. Just imagine you won all
> the 12 months and get 12*5= $60 at year end.
>
> Chess is not played for money it is played for the fun
> we get in playing it.
I doubt that any competent player who's not a masochist
would have much fun in playing Sanny's chess engine.
1) Sanny's extremely ignorant about chess.
2) Sanny's extremely ignorant about chess engines.
3) Sanny's extremely ignorant about what other chess
engines can do that his chess engine cannot do.
Sanny has expected the readers of rec.games.chess.* to
act as his unpaid assistants in debugging his chess engine.
For many months, many diverse players have informed
Sanny that his chess engine has many severe failings.
Sanny's responses have varied from denying that his
chess engine has a particular problem to claiming that
some recent improvement has made his chess engine
practically invincible (perhaps a mild exaggeration).
I have long been convinced that Sanny's extremely
ignorant, arrogant, and delusional. Sanny prefers
to believe that people avoid playing his chess engine
at its higher levels because they are afraid of losing
to it rather than accepting the fact that his chess
engine's practically unplayable at those levels
because it's too slow. Has Sanny ever attempted
to play his own chess engine at those levels?
I can think of no more appropriate punishment
for Sanny than for him to be compelled to spend
many (wasted) hours playing his own chess engine.
It seems true enough, however, that Sanny's
such a weak player that he might be sincerely
impressed by his chess engine's strength.
> And The First Prize is more important not what is given in First Prize.
> Like in a College Exam a student come firsts. (He is not given
> anything) But When he shows his report card to his friends
> everyone wishes him for comming first.
That depends on one's cultural context.
> So if you want to earn money then do some Business / Job.
> If you want fun then play Chess.
As far as I can tell, Sanny's chess engine has been brought
out as part of an intended future commercial venture. Despite
Sanny's relentless disingenuous promotion of his chess engine,
I doubt that enough 'suckers' exist in order for Sanny's chess
engine to make a substantial profit.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 04:54:25
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: 4 days left to Winner Descision.
|
Recently the game has been updated.
Play a game and see if it keeps itself under the time control or not.
Play with Beginner and slowly advance to higher levels.
Thanks
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 23:01:59
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Ranking Changed Bob is now Ahead of Joe_Mama.
|
Play with human opponents.
Here are the steps to play with Human opponents.
1. Login into chat area.
2. Look if anyone else is login.
3. If you see Guest1, Guest2, Guest3.... Ask them to login in Chat Area
and Chat with you.
4. Pust Button "Play Online Game Now"
5. Choose White/Black and accept the game and start playing.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
With Human Opponents you will get more difficult game and you can play
10-20 games in a single day.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 22:57:12
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Ranking Changed Bob is now Ahead of Joe_Mama.
|
Bob won a game with Normal level and improved his Ranking to Third
Place replacing Joe_Mama.
Now Joe_Mama is at Fourth Rank instead of Third.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 22:45:54
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
Yes thats your choice.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
You can get the money or use that money in buying more games. To score
better.
$1.00 and $5.00 is nothing. Just imagine you won all the 12 months and
get 12*5= $60 at year end.
Chess is not played for money it is played for the fun we get in
playing it.
And The First Prize is more important not what is given in First Prize.
Like in a College Exam a student come firsts. (He is not given
anything) But When he shows his report card to his friends everyone
wishes him for comming first.
So if you want to earn money then do some Business / Job. If you want
fun then play Chess.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 18:57:49
From: Nick
Subject: Re: 4 days left to Winner Descision.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Jun 2006 winner will be, I suppose Taylor Kingston (won 23 games.)
> $5.00
>
> IInd Prize will go to Bonsai (won 17 games) $2.00
>
> IIIrd Prize will go to Joe_Mama (won 12 Games) $1.00
>
> IVth Prize will be for Bob (won 10 Games) $1.00
>
> Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> This month the Prize money is small But if the sponsers agree the Prize
> money may be increased in comming months.
>
> The Prize Money will be used to purchase Games. (for next month)
>
> Taylor Kingston will get 40 extra games to play for $5.00
> Bonsai will get 16 extra games for $2.00
> Joe_Mama and next top 6 will get 8 extra games for $1.00
>
> Only four days left for Prize if you are better then may be you can
> change your Ranking in 4 days.
>
> Play with Human opponents also. Atleast 2 games should be won
> against a Human Opponent to win the Prize.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
http://www.ludochess.com/jester_eng/jester_eng.html
Jester (by Stephane N.B. Nguyen) is a free online chess engine
that's much stronger and moves much faster than Sanny's rubbish.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 01:32:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4 days left to Winner Descision.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Joe_Mama and next top 6 will get 8 extra games for $1.00
> 3) Joe_Mama
> Won: 12, Lost: 1
> 6) likesforests
> Won: 5, Lost: 1
Can I have the $1.00 in cash instead of 8 extra games? Feel free to
donate my winnings to a good cause--the Salvation Army USA or American
Red Cross--but I want to see a receipt!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 15:55:55
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Play Chess for fun not Money
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > writes:
> 5 out of 28 moves took more than 10 seconds. While 21 out of 28 moves
> took less than 10 seconds.
>
> So one can say the game making most of the moves in less than 10
> seconds
One might say that - but YOU said "All moves made in 10 seconds!"
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 01:14:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Trading into a pure pawn ending
|
I watched the last Taylor-Sanny game and noted a key endgame position:
Diagram: http://tinyurl.com/edpzb
FEN: 8/pp1k4/4p3/2Pr2p1/3PR3/8/P3K3/8 w - - 0 6
Sanny's program played White. A pawn down, it traded rooks.
What a poor choice! With the rooks on board, White could have held the
draw. Rybka playing at 2+6 time controls proved the same:
1. Kf3 Ke7 2. Rg4 Rf5+ 3. Ke4 b6 4. cxb6 axb6 5. Rg2 Kf6 6. Rh2 Rf4+ 7.
Ke3 Kf5 8. Rh8 e5 9. dxe5 Re4+ 10. Kf3 g4+ 11. Kf2 Rxe5 12. a4 Kf4 13.
Rf8+ Rf5 14. Rd8 b5 15. axb5 Rxb5 16. Rf8+ Rf5 17. Rxf5+ Kxf5 (1/2-1/2)
With the rooks gone, Black has an easy win:
1. Re5 Rxe5+ 2. dxe5 Kc6 3. Kf3 a5 4. Kg4 Kxc5 5. Kxg5 b5 6. Kf4 Kd4 7.
Kf3, White Resigns.
>>>
> Jun 2006 winner will be, I suppose Taylor Kingston (won 23 games.)
> $5.00 Taylor Kingston will get 40 extra games to play for $5.00
Congratulations, Taylor. You "win" 40 more games. I was wondering if he
would actually send the five dollar bill... guess not.
|
|
