| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:58:58
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Chess Challenge increasing (Taylor Kingston Beware)
|
Taylor Kingston, and Nomorechess had been on top for 3 months. Now
GetClub game will soon beat them as it has improved itself again.
Test yourself at Chess: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
This Months TOPPERS
At TOP currently is Taylor Kingston with 31 points.
At Second Position is Richerby with 27 points.
At Third position nomorechess with 24 points.
But now it would be very difficult to win a game with GetClub Chess as
it has improved a lot.
So you should also play with Human players Online.
Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
Now Its Rating is as below
Beginner Level: 1700
Easy Level: 1800
Nomal Level: 1900
Master Level: 2000
Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
So if you are good player play with Beginner Level (That will finish
you)
If you are Tough Player (Play with Easy and Normal Levels)
If you are tournament Player (Then Master level is for you.)
However, If you still find weak moves tell me and that will weak move
will be removed. Provide me full analysis of the game So that I may
understand why the move is wrong.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:11:21
From: Sanny
Subject: (Mating Bug) Removed
|
> It's now making the process even shorter. This morning it played (as
> White, on its "master" level) against me: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4
> 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Qxd7???. At this point it seemed to think it had enforced
> checkmate and scored the game as a loss for me. It did the same thing
> at beginner level -- seems to have it hard-coded.
There was a Bug which was causing to to sacrifice its Queen and Mate.
The Bug has been Removed. The bug was introduced as lot of improvements
were done and the Programmer made typing mistake.
Start a game in New Browser and see it works alright.
Your Ratings and Games will be restored.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:07:52
From: Sanny
Subject: (Mating Bug) Removed
|
> It's now making the process even shorter. This morning it played (as
> White, on its "master" level) against me: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4
> 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Qxd7???. At this point it seemed to think it had enforced
> checkmate and scored the game as a loss for me. It did the same thing
> at beginner level -- seems to have it hard-coded.
There was a Bug which was causing to to sacrifice its Queen and Mate.
The Bug has been Removed. The bug was introduced as lot of improvements
were done and the Programmer made typing mistake.
Start a game in New Browser and see it works alright.
Your Ratings and Games will be restored.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:51:50
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sanny's ridiculous program
|
[email protected] wrote:
> It's now making the process even shorter. This morning it played (as
> White, on its "master" level) against me: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4
> 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Qxd7???. At this point it seemed to think it had enforced
> checkmate and scored the game as a loss for me. It did the same thing
> at beginner level -- seems to have it hard-coded.
It's like he said, "Now it is very difficult to beat." Too bad it
doesn't have a clue how to play chess!
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 15:14:52
From:
Subject: Re: Sanny's ridiculous program
|
Bjoern wrote:
> Bjoern wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> >
> >> Now it is very difficult to beat even the Normal Level. (Only
> >> Nomorechess has beaten the Normal Level after improvements.)
> >
> >
> > Very fun.
> >
> > And can you explain, how the game decided that it has won this game???
> > http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3118&game=Chess
> >
> > In fact the computer is totally lost and has made an illegal move as his
> > last (which certainly doesn't checkmate or anything like that).
>
> It's doing that again! No wonder nobody beats it ;).
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3127&game=Chess
It's now making the process even shorter. This morning it played (as
White, on its "master" level) against me: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Qxd7???. At this point it seemed to think it had enforced
checkmate and scored the game as a loss for me. It did the same thing
at beginner level -- seems to have it hard-coded.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:59:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
He's programming in Java, so perhaps this is more appropriate:
Class java.util.Random
java.lang.Object
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 03:54:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
> >> Now Its Rating is as below
> >>
> >> Beginner Level: 1700
> >> Easy Level: 1800
> >> Nomal Level: 1900
> >> Master Level: 2000
> >
> > As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures?
>
> He pulls them out of his arse, which is quite appropriate as he
> wouldn't know a 2000 player from his elbow.
Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
Here is how I concluded The Ratings.
I played a few games with many people and they told me my level of play
if 1500-1550
Earlier When the Beginner Level was playing as good as me, I gave it
1500 Rating.
One month Back Beginner Level started beating me everytime, I concluded
it to have 1600 Rating.
Now after further Improvements, The Beginner Level Rating is equivalent
to 1700.
Since Easy level which sees 1 depth more, so Easy Level: 1800
Normal Level again sees 1 more depth, so Normal Level: 1900
Master Level sees 1 depth more, so Master Level: 2000
Play a game at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
After modification Only Bob was able to beat the Master Level Who has
2000+ rating.
If you know someother method of finding Rating quickly Tell me the
correct rating.
Now it is very difficult to beat even the Normal Level. (Only
Nomorechess has beaten the Normal Level after improvements.)
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 23:06:30
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Now it is very difficult to beat even the Normal Level. (Only
> Nomorechess has beaten the Normal Level after improvements.)
Very fun.
And can you explain, how the game decided that it has won this game???
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3118&game=Chess
In fact the computer is totally lost and has made an illegal move as his
last (which certainly doesn't checkmate or anything like that).
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 23:33:01
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Bjoern wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
>> Now it is very difficult to beat even the Normal Level. (Only
>> Nomorechess has beaten the Normal Level after improvements.)
>
>
> Very fun.
>
> And can you explain, how the game decided that it has won this game???
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3118&game=Chess
>
> In fact the computer is totally lost and has made an illegal move as his
> last (which certainly doesn't checkmate or anything like that).
It's doing that again! No wonder nobody beats it ;).
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3127&game=Chess
And it played so abysmally badly, that I do not believe it would even be
rated 1200.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:01:15
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Sanny wrote:
>>>>Now Its Rating is as below
>>>>
>>>>Beginner Level: 1700
>>>>Easy Level: 1800
>>>>Nomal Level: 1900
>>>>Master Level: 2000
>>>
>>>As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures?
>>
>>He pulls them out of his arse, which is quite appropriate as he
>>wouldn't know a 2000 player from his elbow.
>
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
>
> Here is how I concluded The Ratings.
>
> I played a few games with many people and they told me my level of play
> if 1500-1550
>
> Earlier When the Beginner Level was playing as good as me, I gave it
> 1500 Rating.
>
> One month Back Beginner Level started beating me everytime, I concluded
> it to have 1600 Rating.
>
> Now after further Improvements, The Beginner Level Rating is equivalent
> to 1700.
>
> Since Easy level which sees 1 depth more, so Easy Level: 1800
>
> Normal Level again sees 1 more depth, so Normal Level: 1900
>
> Master Level sees 1 depth more, so Master Level: 2000
I somewhat concur some of the other answers to this, but on a more
serious I must say that playing strength does not increase linearly with
depth. This is a quite well investigated thing and with 1700 for
Beginner you would never ever get 2000 with an extra 3 depths.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:24:34
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Bjoern wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
>>>>> Now Its Rating is as below
>>>>>
>>>>> Beginner Level: 1700
>>>>> Easy Level: 1800
>>>>> Nomal Level: 1900
>>>>> Master Level: 2000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures?
>>>
>>>
>>> He pulls them out of his arse, which is quite appropriate as he
>>> wouldn't know a 2000 player from his elbow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
>>
>> Here is how I concluded The Ratings.
>>
>> I played a few games with many people and they told me my level of play
>> if 1500-1550
>>
>> Earlier When the Beginner Level was playing as good as me, I gave it
>> 1500 Rating.
>>
>> One month Back Beginner Level started beating me everytime, I concluded
>> it to have 1600 Rating.
>>
>> Now after further Improvements, The Beginner Level Rating is equivalent
>> to 1700.
>>
>> Since Easy level which sees 1 depth more, so Easy Level: 1800
>>
>> Normal Level again sees 1 more depth, so Normal Level: 1900
>>
>> Master Level sees 1 depth more, so Master Level: 2000
>
>
> I somewhat concur some of the other answers to this, but on a more
> serious I must say that playing strength does not increase linearly with
> depth. This is a quite well investigated thing and with 1700 for
> Beginner you would never ever get 2000 with an extra 3 depths.
Actually I should have also pointed out that 1500s do tend to know the
rules of chess and I have yet to meet a 1800-2000 player who didn't -
unless we are talking about the little details like whether you need to
first make the move that leads to a 3-fold-repetition or whether you
make the claim based on whether you can make such a move, but they all
knew that you don't capture the king or that you don't just ignore
checks ("just in case the opponent doesn't notice").
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:02:28
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Here is how I concluded The Ratings.
snip < some really interesting stuff >
> If you know someother method of finding Rating quickly Tell me the
> correct rating.
There are some C library routines that may help you deduce the ratings.
They will certainly be faster and no less accurate. Choose one of
these - I don't think it will make too much difference what one you
choose. The accuracy should be about the same.
Standard C Library Functions drand48(3C)
NAME
drand48, erand48, lrand48, nrand48, mrand48, jrand48,
srand48, seed48, lcong48 - generate uniformly distributed
pseudo-random numbers
SYNOPSIS
#include <stdlib.h >
double drand48(void);
double erand48(unsigned short xi[3] );
long lrand48(void);
long nrand48(unsigned short xi[3] );
long mrand48(void);
long jrand48(unsigned short xi[3] );
void srand48(long seedval);
unsigned short *seed48(unsigned short seed16v[3] );
void lcong48(unsigned short param[7] );
DESCRIPTION
This family of functions generates pseudo-random numbers
using the well-known linear congruential algorithm and 48-
bit integer arithmetic.
Functions drand48() and erand48() return non-negative
double-precision floating-point values uniformly distributed
over the interval [0.0, 1.0).
Functions lrand48() and nrand48() return non-negative long
integers uniformly distributed over the interval [0, 2**31].
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:40:53
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Exact Ratings of Game is quite difficult to find.
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>> If you know someother method of finding Rating quickly Tell me the
>> correct rating.
>
> There are some C library routines that may help you deduce the ratings.
> They will certainly be faster and no less accurate. [...]
>
> Standard C Library Functions drand48(3C)
>
> NAME
> drand48, erand48, lrand48, nrand48, mrand48, jrand48,
> srand48, seed48, lcong48 - generate uniformly distributed
> pseudo-random numbers
They probably ought to be qsorted into ascending order, too. Wouldn't
make much difference, I grant you; more of a style thing, you know?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Spoon (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a piece of cutlery but it's twice
as fast!
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 02:47:51
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess Challenge increasing (Taylor Kingston Beware)
|
Sanny wrote:
> Now Its Rating is as below
> Beginner Level: 1700
> Easy Level: 1800
> Nomal Level: 1900
> Master Level: 2000
As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures? It's
impressive if you can make changes to your software one day and be able
to know the ratings the same or next day. Obviously whatever method you
use must be pretty quick. How accurate is your method of assessment?
I've got a couple of chess programs on my Pocket PC and don't know their
strengths, so I'd be interested how you measure your program.
Should you not put "beginner level" *well* below 1700? Beginners have a
rating of well under 1700 so they would get thrashed each and every time
*if* the program is really playing at 1700. I thought a rating of 1800
was pretty strong, not "easy".
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:26:55
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess Challenge increasing (Taylor Kingston Beware)
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>> Now Its Rating is as below
>>
>> Beginner Level: 1700
>> Easy Level: 1800
>> Nomal Level: 1900
>> Master Level: 2000
>
> As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures?
He pulls them out of his arse, which is quite appropriate as he
wouldn't know a 2000 player from his elbow.
> How accurate is your method of assessment?
On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it about a minus fourteen.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Frozen Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's frozen in a block of ice!
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:35:27
From:
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess Challenge increasing (Taylor Kingston Beware)
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> >> Now Its Rating is as below
> >>
> >> Beginner Level: 1700
> >> Easy Level: 1800
> >> Nomal Level: 1900
> >> Master Level: 2000
> >
> > As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures?
>
> He pulls them out of his arse, which is quite appropriate as he
> wouldn't know a 2000 player from his elbow.
>
> > How accurate is your method of assessment?
>
> On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it about a minus fourteen.
ROTFLMFAO You do know how to count when it counts, D.R. ;-D
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 03:56:31
From: Henry Sniadoch
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess Challenge increasing (Taylor Kingston Beware)
|
Yes. I have a good calculator.
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
>> Now Its Rating is as below
>
>> Beginner Level: 1700
>> Easy Level: 1800
>> Nomal Level: 1900
>> Master Level: 2000
>
> As a matter of interest, how to you arrive at those figures? It's
> impressive if you can make changes to your software one day and be able
> to know the ratings the same or next day. Obviously whatever method you
> use must be pretty quick. How accurate is your method of assessment?
>
> I've got a couple of chess programs on my Pocket PC and don't know their
> strengths, so I'd be interested how you measure your program.
>
> Should you not put "beginner level" *well* below 1700? Beginners have a
> rating of well under 1700 so they would get thrashed each and every time
> *if* the program is really playing at 1700. I thought a rating of 1800
> was pretty strong, not "easy".
>
|
|
