Main
Date: 28 May 2008 17:15:22
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
All I see here are "Sam Sloan" postings and Sanny rubbish. This used to be a
great group, especially when Dr. Hyatt made an occassional appearance.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.




 
Date: 29 May 2008 09:40:50
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
> All I see here are "Sam Sloan" postings and Sanny rubbish. This used to
> be a
> great group, especially when Dr. Hyatt made an occassional appearance.
>

Dr. Hyatt and all the other real chess programmers and chess program
enthusiasts have left here due to too much spam about non-computer chess
stuff, such as USCF, Sam Sloan, etc. etc.

Hyatt now frequents the TalkChess.com forum, where you have to register
before you can post, and things are moderated in an effort to keep it from
becoming like here.






 
Date: 29 May 2008 11:15:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> All I see here are "Sam Sloan" postings and Sanny rubbish. This
> used to be a great group, especially when Dr. Hyatt made an
> occassional appearance.

Killfiling everything that's cross-posted to rgc.politics or posted by
Sanny makes the group readable (though rather low volume) for me.

If you're using Google Groups or some other software that doesn't
support killfiling then the only solution is to change that.
Complaining about junk on Usenet without using killfiles is like
complaining about E-mail spam without using spam-filtering software.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Newspaper (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ daily broadsheet that has mystical
powers!


  
Date: 29 May 2008 18:21:18
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> All I see here are "Sam Sloan" postings and Sanny rubbish. This
>> used to be a great group, especially when Dr. Hyatt made an
>> occassional appearance.
>
> Killfiling everything that's cross-posted to rgc.politics or posted by
> Sanny makes the group readable (though rather low volume) for me.
>
> If you're using Google Groups or some other software that doesn't
> support killfiling then the only solution is to change that.
> Complaining about junk on Usenet without using killfiles is like
> complaining about E-mail spam without using spam-filtering software.
>

You are correct. I try to reserve the use of the kill/score file as a last
resort, because sometimes a heated discussion can get somebody into such a
file when really, the majority of the time, things are fine and their posted
content is fine to read. Sanny, however, is starting to drive me insane with
his shameless and flagrant abusue of this newsgroup as a platform for his
spam. I will take your advice for Sanny and consider the sam sloan emails at
a later time [that issue is more complicated anyway].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.


 
Date: 28 May 2008 10:40:06
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> All I see here are "Sam Sloan" postings and Sanny rubbish. =A0This used to=
be a
> great group, especially when Dr. Hyatt made an occassional appearance.

Who is Dr. Hyatt? I read a few lines about him. He was some Chess
Expert. Has he developed Fritz / Rybka / Chess Master???

What program did he made. Is GetClub Stronger than the Program he
made.

Since myself and Dr Hyatt worked on Chess we two have lots in common.
If Dr Hyatt is present here let me know how can I improve the GetClub
game further.

I read somewhere that he went away because of some fight with people
on this newsgroup. I am missing his messages, let him come back and
enlighten us with the knowledge he has.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




  
Date: 31 May 2008 19:15:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 30, 12:28 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> I do not know abt Crafty have a game and tell me who is strong
> GetClub or Crafty.
>
> What level was able to beat Craftly?

Crafty is much stronger than GetClub, if only
because it is not riddled with serious flaws
(moving into check, R-N1 problems, unable
to execute elementary wins in the endgame,
etc.).

In fact, because Crafty is *free*, it could be
a useful tool for developing the GetClub
program, for testing purposes. So could any
number of other strong, free chess engines.


-- help bot



  
Date: 31 May 2008 19:09:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 30, 1:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

> And everyone who replies is encouraging him to increase his
> spam output.

So stop already! How can someone believe
the above unsupported claim and yet continue
to encourage "spam"? It can only be someone
who likes spam-- especially Sanny's brand... .


-- help bot




  
Date: 30 May 2008 22:31:14
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?

> There have been, and are, world tournaments. =A0But none of them have ever=

> given *lots* of prize money. =A0Maybe enough to pay for your travel expens=
es
> and hotel room, with enough left over to celebrate your victory. =A0Not en=
ough
> to pay for the computer time (if you were using a mainframe or supercomput=
er
> or some other system that you had to pay for.)

So, its like drowning your money into a river. I do not have the
luxury to spend money just for fame. I always wanted to design a Chess
game. And I am just content with what GetClub has achieved.

If I get back money I have invested in it then only I will think on
further improvements. I have a life and debts that I have to pay. So I
cannot pay more time on this program. However if some improvement
needs just 1-2 days that much I can afford.

Thanks for your efforts, And have a nice time Playing at GetClub
Chess.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 02 Jun 2008 13:25:19
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
In rec.games.chess.computer Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, its like drowning your money into a river. I do not have the
> luxury to spend money just for fame. I always wanted to design a Chess
> game. And I am just content with what GetClub has achieved.
>

No you aren't, or you wouldn't be spamming your URL around here as it were an
advertising forum.

>
> Play Chess at: http://www.chessclub.com

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.


   
Date: 01 Jun 2008 01:08:58
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
In article <c5bad835-8593-4a45-836b-7ebdf228c7b3@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com >,
Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] However if some improvement
>needs just 1-2 days that much I can afford.

You said a couple of days back that your program didn't use
alpha-beta pruning. If this is really true, then approximately ten
minutes of coding will more-or-less double the depth to which your
program can search in a given time. Alternatively, it will enable
you to replace a hideously buggy selective search by a full-width
accurate search to the same depth.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham


    
Date: 31 May 2008 21:05:33
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Andy Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <c5bad835-8593-4a45-836b-7ebdf228c7b3@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...] However if some improvement
>>needs just 1-2 days that much I can afford.
>
> You said a couple of days back that your program didn't use
> alpha-beta pruning. If this is really true, then approximately ten

I have to admit, I am curious what techniques he does use, if he's not using
the normal methods.

I asked him, but he didn't say anything. And he doesn't seem too interested
in going over to various chess programming forums where he can talk with
hundreds of chess programmers....


> minutes of coding will more-or-less double the depth to which your
> program can search in a given time. Alternatively, it will enable
> you to replace a hideously buggy selective search by a full-width
> accurate search to the same depth.

It might not even be a search. From what *very* little I've heard in here,
maybe it's more of a knowledge based approach with a little bit of
q-searching applied.

Who knows.

I haven't been following his program (or this group) so I'm in no position
to even guess.


Speaking of selective search... I wonder how the selective programs from the
past would do against today's players.

Programs like Chaos & Awit. (Those were the top two selective search
programs. After Chaos retired, I don't think anybody has done one since.
MacHack & Chess 3.6 are famous, but they didn't play as well as those two.)

If I remember right (and I may not), Chaos had a rating of around 1900-2000
on a big mainframe back in the mid 80s. With today's cpu speeds, it'd
probably get a factor of 100 speed up. That would probably be enough to
avoid many of the blunders that were typical of selective search programs.

I don't think Chaos could do multiple cpu's. They weren't too common back
then except on rare specialized systems or super computers.

Modern brute force programs would probably beat it, but human players.... I
wonder. I gotta admit, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for
selective search programs. Brute force programs just seem so... crude in
principle.

I understand why they work so well. (My own programs have all been regular
brute force programs.) I just think there's something more 'elegant' and
AI'ish about selective search.



>
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
>




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


     
Date: 01 Jun 2008 02:54:48
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



Guest wrote:
>
>Andy Walker wrote...
>
>> You said a couple of days back that your program didn't use
>> alpha-beta pruning.
>
>I have to admit, I am curious what techniques he does use, if he's not using
>the normal methods.
>
>I asked him, but he didn't say anything. And he doesn't seem too interested
>in going over to various chess programming forums where he can talk with
>hundreds of chess programmers....

It's pretty obvious what is going on.

This is a multiple person operation.

Sanny, the english speaker, has no programming skills or intelligence.
His job is to spam. That's all he does. Anyone who actually pays
attention to the random crap he put above hios spam payload would do
far better to run a copy of ELIZA.

Mr. X, the chess engine programmer, does not speak English, nor
does the programming department waste any time communicting with
the spamming department. Why bother?

It is unclear whether Sanny hired Mr. X to program, whether Mr. X
hired Sanny to spam, or whether some third person hired them both.





      
Date: 02 Jun 2008 13:29:38
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
In rec.games.chess.computer Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>
> It's pretty obvious what is going on.
>
> This is a multiple person operation.
>

Probably only one or two programmers.

> Sanny, the english speaker, has no programming skills or intelligence.
> His job is to spam. That's all he does. Anyone who actually pays
> attention to the random crap he put above hios spam payload would do
> far better to run a copy of ELIZA.
>

Bingo ... you hit the Sanny nail square on the head.

> Mr. X, the chess engine programmer, does not speak English, nor
> does the programming department waste any time communicting with
> the spamming department. Why bother?
>
> It is unclear whether Sanny hired Mr. X to program, whether Mr. X
> hired Sanny to spam, or whether some third person hired them both.
>

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.


      
Date: 31 May 2008 22:21:01
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Guest wrote:
>>
>>Andy Walker wrote...
>>
>>> You said a couple of days back that your program didn't use
>>> alpha-beta pruning.
>>
>>I have to admit, I am curious what techniques he does use, if he's not
>>using
>>the normal methods.
>>
>>I asked him, but he didn't say anything. And he doesn't seem too
>>interested
>>in going over to various chess programming forums where he can talk with
>>hundreds of chess programmers....
>
> It's pretty obvious what is going on.
>
> This is a multiple person operation.
>
> Sanny, the english speaker, has no programming skills or intelligence.
> His job is to spam. That's all he does. Anyone who actually pays
> attention to the random crap he put above hios spam payload would do
> far better to run a copy of ELIZA.
>
> Mr. X, the chess engine programmer, does not speak English, nor
> does the programming department waste any time communicting with
> the spamming department. Why bother?
>
> It is unclear whether Sanny hired Mr. X to program, whether Mr. X
> hired Sanny to spam, or whether some third person hired them both.

I suppose those things are possible. I'm not around this group enough to
have paid any attention to his earlier messages.

I'm not loosing any sleep over this, though. And I have no desire to go to
his website. If I want to play chess, I have plenty of programs already.

Unless somebody has money to burn and throw away, I find it hard to believe
it could be more than a two person operation, probably involving people who
already know each other. After all, who would be stupid enough to actually
invest money into a brand new chess program and chess playing site? But
what do I know.

As for spamming.... Surely he could pick a better place than here. There's
not really enough going on in this group to be able to attract many people
to go to his site.

(shrug)


As for Eliza....

Now there's a program I haven't thought of in years!

I remember back in school, we'd load up Eliza onto the PET from tape, and we
could spend the whole hour playing with it.

We knew it was just a program, but it was kind of fun to talk to it, and
have it talk back and even remember some things that we had mentioned
before. And we always tried to confuse it and mess with its 'mind'.

(We were easily amused....grin)

I wonder if I still have the listing to that old program... Before I left
there, I printed out a bunch of junk. Been a while, so if I do have it, the
odds are good its moldy by now.


I remember hearing a story about early versions on mainframes. Somebody
noticed that the program was always being used for long periods of time, and
they got curious about what it was, so they modified the program to save a
copy of the conversation.

Turns out that most people really were talking about very intimate and
delicate subjects.


And wasn't there an instant messaging version a few years back? Somebody
hooked up one of those kind of programs to, I think, AOL's AIM. AOL got
into a huff about it and banned the person.


Don't suppose you already know of any good Eliza style programs that can be
downloaded, do you? Might be a bit of nostalgic fun to try and screw with
the imaginary shrink's head.





----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


       
Date: 01 Jun 2008 20:30:31
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



Guest wrote:

>As for spamming.... Surely he could pick a better place than here.

That would be an example of Rule #3 (see below)

>There's not really enough going on in this group to be able to
>attract many people to go to his site.

That would be an example of Rule #4.

>Unless somebody has money to burn and throw away, I find it hard
>to believe it could be more than a two person operation, probably
>involving people who already know each other. After all, who would
>be stupid enough to actually invest money into a brand new chess
>program and chess playing site?

Rule # 3 and #4.

From: http://www.lumbercartel.nl/

The rules of spam

* Rule #0: Spam is theft.
* Rule #1: Spammers lie.
* Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
* Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
* Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt.

Read the rules of spam with commentary here::

From: http://www.lumbercartel.nl/
http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/spam/SpammersHaveNoEthicsDivideAndConquer
http://bruce.pennypacker.org/spamrules.html

Examples from above web[pages:

"Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do."

"The Rules also apply to those people (such as candidates for political
office, solicitors for "worthy" causes, propagators of religious
faiths, etc.) who deem their message to be of such overwhelming
importance that it utterly transcends the rights of others"

>As for Eliza....
>
>Now there's a program I haven't thought of in years!
...
>Don't suppose you already know of any good Eliza style programs that can be
>downloaded, do you? Might be a bit of nostalgic fun to try and screw with
>the imaginary shrink's head.

Several here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatterbots
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/



--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



        
Date: 02 Jun 2008 00:26:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> From: http://www.lumbercartel.nl/
>
> The rules of spam
>
> * Rule #0: Spam is theft.

*sigh* Theft is the taking of physical objects, without consent and
with the intent to permanently deprive. Therefore, spamming is not
theft and nor (FACT, take note) is breach of copyright. That's why
these things are covered by different laws.

> * Rule #1: Spammers lie.
> * Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule
> #1.

Agreed.

> * Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

Unethical and sociopathic, yes, but that's not equivalent to stupid.

> * Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go
> bankrupt.

If that were the case, why is there so much spam? (Some estimates
have it that over 90% of E-mail traffic is spam.) Surely, if all the
spammers are going bust, people would stop spamming after a while?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Poetic Tree (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tree but it's in verse and
invigorating!


         
Date: 02 Jun 2008 00:57:14
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



David Richerby wrote:

>*sigh* Theft is the taking of physical objects, without consent and
>with the intent to permanently deprive.

Just because you don't believe that theft of services exists, that
doesn't change the reality that services (life electricity, bandwidth
and disk space) do exist and can be stolen.



          
Date: 02 Jun 2008 09:31:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>>*sigh* Theft is the taking of physical objects, without consent and
>>with the intent to permanently deprive.
>
> Just because you don't believe that theft of services exists, that
> doesn't change the reality that services (life electricity, band-
> width and disk space) do exist and can be stolen.

They cannot be stolen. Wires and hard disks can be stolen;
electricity, bandwidth and disk space can be obtained fraudulently and
used illegally but this is not theft, which is why new laws had to be
passed to deal with them.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Perforated Dish (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fine ceramic dish but it's full
of holes and you can take it anywhere!


           
Date: 03 Jun 2008 02:03:19
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>
>>>*sigh* Theft is the taking of physical objects, without consent and
>>>with the intent to permanently deprive.
>>
>> Just because you don't believe that theft of services exists, that
>> doesn't change the reality that services (life electricity, band-
>> width and disk space) do exist and can be stolen.
>
>They cannot be stolen. Wires and hard disks can be stolen;
>electricity, bandwidth and disk space can be obtained fraudulently and
>used illegally but this is not theft, which is why new laws had to be
>passed to deal with them.

Yes we are all aware of your opinion on this. No need to repeat
it over and over; we already know what you think to be true.

It appears that a whole bunch of lawyers, judges, and legislators
do not agree with you. A goohgle search on "theft of services"
( http://www.google.com/search?q=%22theft+of+services%22&num=100 )
turns up many laws that were written with that phrase in them.
You can do the same with the terms "identity theft" or "theft of
intellectual property."




         
Date: 02 Jun 2008 00:53:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?


David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> From: http://www.lumbercartel.nl/
>>
>> The rules of spam
>>
>> * Rule #0: Spam is theft.
>
>*sigh* Theft is the taking of physical objects, without consent and
>with the intent to permanently deprive. Therefore, spamming is not
>theft and nor (FACT, take note) is breach of copyright. That's why
>these things are covered by different laws.
>
>> * Rule #1: Spammers lie.
>> * Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule
>> #1.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> * Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
>
>Unethical and sociopathic, yes, but that's not equivalent to stupid.

They really are stupid. Do a web search on the phrase "spammers
are stupid" and you will find example after example.


>> * Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go
>> bankrupt.
>
>If that were the case, why is there so much spam? (Some estimates
>have it that over 90% of E-mail traffic is spam.) Surely, if all the
>spammers are going bust, people would stop spamming after a while?

Because of Rule #3, new spammers keep filling in the vacencies.



       
Date: 01 Jun 2008 18:10:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Eliza (was Re: What has this group become?)
Guest <[email protected] > wrote:
> We knew it was just a program, but it was kind of fun to talk to it,
> and have it talk back and even remember some things that we had
> mentioned before. And we always tried to confuse it and mess with
> its 'mind'.

Just copying its responses back to it confuses it pretty hard.

Patient: Hello
Eliza: How do you do? What brings you to see me?
Patient: How do you do? What brings you to see me?
Eliza: Why do you say what brings me to see you?
Patient: Why do you say what brings me to see you?
Eliza: Is it because do I say what brings you to see me that you
came to me?
Patient: Is it because do I say what brings you to see me that you
came to me?
Eliza: Does it bother you that do you say what brings me to see you
that I came to you?
Patient: Does it bother you that do you say what brings me to see you
that I came to you?
Eliza: When did you first know that do I say what brings you to see
me that you came to me?

> (We were easily amused....grin)

Yeah, me too. :-)

> Don't suppose you already know of any good Eliza style programs that
> can be downloaded, do you? Might be a bit of nostalgic fun to try
> and screw with the imaginary shrink's head.

The emacs text editor comes with a version built in; there are plenty
on the web, such as

http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/


Dave.

--
David Richerby Love Cat (TM): it's like a cat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ you can share with someone special!


        
Date: 01 Jun 2008 20:33:08
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Eliza



David Richerby wrote:

>Guest <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Don't suppose you already know of any good Eliza style programs that
>> can be downloaded, do you? Might be a bit of nostalgic fun to try
>> and screw with the imaginary shrink's head.
>
>The emacs text editor comes with a version built in; there are plenty
>on the web, such as
>
> http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/


Several more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatterbots
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



         
Date: 02 Jun 2008 09:25:14
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Eliza
Thanks everybody for the Eliza stuff.

I didn't know there were so many people doing those kinds of programs these
days.

I figured most of the research was probably done in the old days of AI and
in the days of text adventure games, like the Infocom stuff.


"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>>Guest <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Don't suppose you already know of any good Eliza style programs that
>>> can be downloaded, do you? Might be a bit of nostalgic fun to try
>>> and screw with the imaginary shrink's head.
>>
>>The emacs text editor comes with a version built in; there are plenty
>>on the web, such as
>>
>> http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/
>
>
> Several more here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
>
> Also see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatterbots
> http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
> http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


          
Date: 02 Jun 2008 18:20:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Eliza
Guest <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks everybody for the Eliza stuff.
>
> I didn't know there were so many people doing those kinds of
> programs these days.
>
> I figured most of the research was probably done in the old days of
> AI and in the days of text adventure games, like the Infocom stuff.

I suspect that much of the research is as old as you think it is but
that doesn't stop people re-implementing it. :-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Devil Composer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pupil of Beethoven that's possessed
by Satan!


  
Date: 30 May 2008 11:23:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> >I am just 1100 rated player. Even Beginner Level beats me in 10/10
> >games.
>
> Me, even my simple programs from 20 years ago can beat me. =A0And I know t=
hose
> programs were junk. =A0I'm a lousy player and as a result, everything beat=
s
> me. =A0That's the way it is.

Now 90% of the players are unable to win even the Beginner Level. So I
am very Satisfied with my Program.

Now I have lost the craze that I had as GetClub is winning most of the
players.

I asked once, is there any world Tournament which give lots of Prize
money but people responded there used to be a few but now no one makes
such tournaments. So I have no desire to improve this game further.

Most of the players are unable to win. GetClub is meant only for Human
Players and it plays well with them well. So I do not see any reasion
to put more efforts in it.

However if something can be done in 1-2 days that much I can do.

Now, GetClub Program is ready for all. Go and Play if you like.

Only play if you like playing Chess. I am not forcing anyone to play.
Just enjoy the games if you like Chess.

Chess is fun and you enjoy it.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 30 May 2008 14:01:28
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
>"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:591033f6-fdb3-46dd-9510->[email protected]...
>> >I am just 1100 rated player. Even Beginner Level beats me in 10/10
>> >games.
>>
>> Me, even my simple programs from 20 years ago can beat me. And I know
>> those
>> programs were junk. I'm a lousy player and as a result, everything beats
>> me. That's the way it is.
>
>Now 90% of the players are unable to win even the Beginner Level. So I
>am very Satisfied with my Program.
>
>Now I have lost the craze that I had as GetClub is winning most of the
>players.

Perhaps you should modify your program so it can play through the various
internet chess servers. That would let it play against thousands of other
people and programs.

The odds are good there are a better quality of players there than that go
to your site.

When most people want to play a game of chess online, they go to a server,
not to somebody's private website. (Yours or anybody elses.)


>I asked once, is there any world Tournament which give lots of Prize
>money but people responded there used to be a few but now no one makes
>such tournaments. So I have no desire to improve this game further.

There have been, and are, world tournaments. But none of them have ever
given *lots* of prize money. Maybe enough to pay for your travel expenses
and hotel room, with enough left over to celebrate your victory. Not enough
to pay for the computer time (if you were using a mainframe or supercomputer
or some other system that you had to pay for.)

There is no real money in computer chess, unless you can find some company
willing to hire you to do chess programming, you probably aren't going to
make enough to even pay for the electricity the computer is using while
you've been doing the chess programming.

That's just the way it is with chess programming.

In the old days, with lots of different kinds of 8 bit micros, and the PC,
there was enough variety that you could make enough money selling your chess
program as shareware or in the back of a magazine that you might make enough
money to take a few weeks off from work and take a vacation some place, or
even buy a car.

Not anymore. There are too many programs and nearly all of them are
stronger than the people playing them.


>Most of the players are unable to win. GetClub is meant only for Human
>Players and it plays well with them well. So I do not see any reasion
>to put more efforts in it.

I think that says more about the people who go to your personal web site
than about the quality of the program itself.

There are some very strong players and programs on the various free internet
chess servers.

And that's where people go when they want to play chess. They can play
chess against a person or against a program. Or even another program.


>However if something can be done in 1-2 days that much I can do.
>
>Now, GetClub Program is ready for all. Go and Play if you like.

No thank you, but thank you for offering.



>Only play if you like playing Chess. I am not forcing anyone to play.
>Just enjoy the games if you like Chess.
>
>Chess is fun and you enjoy it.
>
>Bye
>Sanny
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  
Date: 30 May 2008 10:14:41
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 30, 10:01=A0pm, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:f65e855d-122c-411e-9ac5-
>
> >I am having a match with IVAN. and you knowGetClubis winning the
> >game.
>
> >GetClubis thinking only 20-30 sec / move (Easy Level)
> >IVAN is thinking 1-2 min / move.
> >StillGetClubposition is strong. SoGetClubis atleast better than
> >One Commercial Program IVAN. which say it is 1800 rated.
>
> Instead of testing against that, why not test against various free program=
s,
> so that way everybody can relate.
>
> How about...
>
> GNUChessv3.21 (or there abouts)
> =A0 =A0Not the latest, but relatively small and was very popular many year=
s ago.
> =A0 Some may suggest v4 or 5.07, which are stronger, but I have a soft spo=
t
> for v3.21
> =A0 Doing v4 or v5 would probably be easier to find.
>
> TSCP
> =A0 Not super strong, but very popular with beginning programmers and is o=
ften
> used as a comparison.
>
> Crafty - latest version.
> =A0 On common modern hardware, probably rating of 2700 =A0Older versions w=
here
> rated at 2600 on slow hardware, so I think 2700 on a modern dual-core syst=
em
> would be reasonable.
>
> Fruit 2.1
> =A0 A very strongchessprogram (with source) that just appeared a few years=

> ago.
>
> Micro-Max 4.8http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/dwnldpage.html
> =A0 A very small program that is surprisingly strong. =A0Starting to becom=
e
> somewhat popular as a test against newchessprograms.

Play a few games on your Computer and lets see what you think about
the GetClub program Strength. Currently I am having a match with IVAN.
And It will take a week to complete that game as we are playing
Correspondence game.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


> Also beaware that due to normal statistical variations, to say that one
> program is stronger than the other, you'll need to play at least 10 games,=

> with a program playing 5 white and 5 black. =A0(Actually, there are many
> people who say that even 10 or 100 games is not enough to truely say which=

> program is stronger than another program.)

Tell me what do you think is current rating of Beginner/ Easy/ Normal
Levels.

Currently I play against Rybka and find Rybka at 5 sec/ move plays as
good as Master Level at GetClub.

It is very difficult for me to find mistake in its game. Only Top
level players in this newsgroup are able to find mistakes in the
games.

I am just 1100 rated player. Even Beginner Level beats me in 10/10
games.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 30 May 2008 12:59:21
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
>"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:665c82fb-8d65-4634-be0d->[email protected]...
>On May 30, 10:01 pm, "Guest" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:f65e855d-122c-411e-9ac5-
>>
>> >I am having a match with IVAN. and you knowGetClubis winning the
>> >game.
>>
>> >GetClubis thinking only 20-30 sec / move (Easy Level)
>> >IVAN is thinking 1-2 min / move.
>> >StillGetClubposition is strong. SoGetClubis atleast better than
>> >One Commercial Program IVAN. which say it is 1800 rated.
>>
>> Instead of testing against that, why not test against various free
>> programs,
>> so that way everybody can relate.
>>
>> How about...
>>
>> GNUChessv3.21 (or there abouts)
>> Not the latest, but relatively small and was very popular many years ago.
>> Some may suggest v4 or 5.07, which are stronger, but I have a soft spot
>> for v3.21
>> Doing v4 or v5 would probably be easier to find.
>>
>> TSCP
>> Not super strong, but very popular with beginning programmers and is
>> often
>> used as a comparison.
>>
>> Crafty - latest version.
>> On common modern hardware, probably rating of 2700 Older versions where
>> rated at 2600 on slow hardware, so I think 2700 on a modern dual-core
>> system
>> would be reasonable.
>>
>> Fruit 2.1
>> A very strongchessprogram (with source) that just appeared a few years
>> ago.
>>
>> Micro-Max 4.8http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/dwnldpage.html
>> A very small program that is surprisingly strong. Starting to become
>> somewhat popular as a test against newchessprograms.
>
>Play a few games on your Computer and lets see what you think about
>the GetClub program Strength. Currently I am having a match with IVAN.
>And It will take a week to complete that game as we are playing
>Correspondence game.

I'm not the one going around saying my program is so much better than
everybody else's.

I'm just telling you a simple way for you to do tests that others can relate
to.

Instead of taking your word on how strong your program is, you can give test
results (for normal tournament speeds) against programs that everybody has
access to and can relate to.

It's also a good way for you to judge improvements by, and to judge your
program against others that have also done tests & tournaments etc.



>> Also beaware that due to normal statistical variations, to say that one
>> program is stronger than the other, you'll need to play at least 10
>> games,
>> with a program playing 5 white and 5 black. (Actually, there are many
>> people who say that even 10 or 100 games is not enough to truely say
>> which
>> program is stronger than another program.)
>
>Tell me what do you think is current rating of Beginner/ Easy/ Normal
>Levels.
>
>Currently I play against Rybka and find Rybka at 5 sec/ move plays as
>good as Master Level at GetClub.

That's not encouraging.

Rybka is strong, but at 5 seconds per move, it has lost most of its
strength.

In that case, I would suggest you do a match against TSCP or Micro-Max.
Both are fairly simple programs. If they can beat your program, then you
have some serious work ahead.



>It is very difficult for me to find mistake in its game. Only Top
>level players in this newsgroup are able to find mistakes in the
>games.
>
>I am just 1100 rated player. Even Beginner Level beats me in 10/10
>games.

That would probably be true of most lower levels of chess programs.

That's just the nature of being a poor chess player.

Me, even my simple programs from 20 years ago can beat me. And I know those
programs were junk. I'm a lousy player and as a result, everything beats
me. That's the way it is.



>Bye
>Sanny
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  
Date: 30 May 2008 09:28:32
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 29, 1:21=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Who is Dr. Hyatt?
>
> Dr. Hyatt is the creator of Crafty.
>
> > What program did he made. IsGetClubStronger than the Program he
> > made.
>
> GitClub is not even close to being as strong as Crafty.

GetClub has been improve a lot and is much stronger than what you used
to play earlier. Have a try and see for yourself.

I am having a match with IVAN. and you know GetClub is winning the
game.

GetClub is thinking only 20-30 sec / move (Easy Level)
IVAN is thinking 1-2 min / move.

Still GetClub position is strong. So GetClub is atleast better than
One Commercial Program IVAN. which say it is 1800 rated.

I do not know abt Crafty have a game and tell me who is strong
GetClub or Crafty.

What level was able to beat Craftly?

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 30 May 2008 12:01:46
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
>"Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:f65e855d-122c-411e-9ac5-
>
>I am having a match with IVAN. and you know GetClub is winning the
>game.
>
>GetClub is thinking only 20-30 sec / move (Easy Level)
>IVAN is thinking 1-2 min / move.

>Still GetClub position is strong. So GetClub is atleast better than
>One Commercial Program IVAN. which say it is 1800 rated.

Instead of testing against that, why not test against various free programs,
so that way everybody can relate.

How about...

GNU Chess v3.21 (or there abouts)
Not the latest, but relatively small and was very popular many years ago.
Some may suggest v4 or 5.07, which are stronger, but I have a soft spot
for v3.21
Doing v4 or v5 would probably be easier to find.

TSCP
Not super strong, but very popular with beginning programmers and is often
used as a comparison.

Crafty - latest version.
On common modern hardware, probably rating of 2700 Older versions where
rated at 2600 on slow hardware, so I think 2700 on a modern dual-core system
would be reasonable.

Fruit 2.1
A very strong chess program (with source) that just appeared a few years
ago.

Micro-Max 4.8
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/dwnldpage.html
A very small program that is surprisingly strong. Starting to become
somewhat popular as a test against new chess programs.



Also beaware that due to normal statistical variations, to say that one
program is stronger than the other, you'll need to play at least 10 games,
with a program playing 5 white and 5 black. (Actually, there are many
people who say that even 10 or 100 games is not enough to truely say which
program is stronger than another program.)







----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  
Date: 29 May 2008 17:51:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 29, 7:36 pm, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Wrongheaded thinking. The top commercial
> > programmers keep secrets so they can maintain
> > their status. More helpful are those who are not

> With reverse engineering done on all the top programs, there aren't too many
> secrets left, unless a competitor deliberately chooses *not* to know. Which
> is actually often the case with top chess programmers.

Funny, but I never see discussion of this by
the programmers. They sometimes complain
about their programs being specifically
targeted by the competition, as in tweaking
for better results against, say, Fritz or Rybka,
which is dismissed as *not* indicative of how
well such programs might fare against
humans.


> > concerned about staying number one (or two, or
> > three, etc.). As far as I know, the best help in
> > the area of chess programming is not to be
> > found here in rgc, and probably never has been.

> Actually, it probably was for quite a few years because there wasn't many
> other places to go.

Nonsense. There are books about this, and
magazines, and Web sites and email. In the
case of GetClub, a book on how to write a
chess program makes perfect sense.


> Conferences and publications like ICCAJ were helpful to some degree, but not
> in the way of somebody being stuck and needing help.

Rank beginners might very well bore or annoy
an advanced programmer-- especially one who
has become ego-bloated on the wings of his
programs' success.


> The old days were different.

"In some things, the old ways are best."

[From the movie Barbarella. I'm not sure
what area of chess programming they were
discussing; I got distracted by young JF.]


> > I seem to recall that even back when Dr. Hyatt
> > was posting here, he got entangled in egotistical
>
> And why should he be any different from anybody else?

Fame, my boy. You would be surprised at
what fame and riches can do to a person, if
he is not careful. In my day, winners of the
Olympic games were warned to remember
they are mortal-- not gods!


> I'm not saying Dr. Hyatt hasn't had his fair share of 'over the top'
> discussions.
>
> I'm just saying that definetly happens in public newsgroups / forums.
> Espeically unmoderated ones.

You may have noticed that certain types of
people tend to get inordinately touchy with
their critics and with criticism in general. It
seems to me the one thing they have in
common is fame. Here are just a few of the
people who, as we have seen, cannot handle
any criticism whatever-- even constructive
criticism:
Larry Evans, Ray Keene, Bob Hyatt... all of
them famous celebrities, if you will.


> > One of Dr. Hyatt's harshest critics was a Mr.
> > Teuschen, who apparently was handicapped
> > and who took great offense at some ideas of Dr.
> > Hyatt's which had nothing whatever to do with
> > chess. I got the impression of ego-bloat, where
> > the great success of CrayBlitz had gone to the
>
> By that time, he probably was no longer doing CrayBlitz.

Irrelevant, as the swelling does not go down
when one switches hardware.


> He's been doing Crafty for quite a few years.

Duh! I pointed out the fact that such programs
as Crafty were free to Sanny, a long time ago.
His response is always the same: please analyze
this game and tell me where my program messed
up.


> And it's also worth pointing out that any ego he might have had about
> CrayBlitz got deflated quite a few years back when CB lost the world title.

If you call what happened to BH "deflation", you
need to take a course in economics! The man's
head did not deflate substantially; like many
others, he came up with excuses for why his
program did not win "this time".


> As I said in one of my messages, Hyatt hasn't had the top program in a long
> time.

In fact, his Crafty program is not even one of
the top-rated *free* engines anymore.


> But if it did occur during the years when CrayBlitz was on top, then he
> probably did have an ego. Not too uncommon. When you have the world
> championship program and you get to play with the world's fastest
> supercomputers, then you might indeed get a bit of an ego.

Not me. I happen to believe that the speed of
the Cray super-computer is not my doing. And
having access to such a machine -- for free --
is also not my doing.


> But don't worry.... it got deflated long ago.

In that case, he could come back and there
would be no "Larry Evans" style problems.
Don't hold your breath!


> > program their chess engines, I seriously doubt
> > the portrayal of Dr. Hyatt's disappearance as
> > a great loss to rgc is realistic. It reminds me
>
> You probably wouldn't say that if you had been following other computer
> chess forums where he regularly participates and has helped hundreds of
> chess programmers, helped test new ideas, etc. etc.

Ah, I read a little about how he helped folks
on ICC or wherever. But here in rgc he was
just an opinionated buffoon, sort of like Ray
Keene or Larry Evans.


> I do not know Dr. Hyatt personally, so I can say nothing about his
> personality, his life style, what music he listens to, etc. etc.

What kind of bus he likes to drive... over scum
who molest children, or whatever. I understand.


> But I have followed computer chess for years and seen him in the forums
> etc., and it is safe to say he is a very helpful person when it comes to
> computer chess.

Many people suggested contacting him via
email or some other method. That's because
nobody was doling out much help here in rgc,
where folks like Sanny look for it.


> You don't have to always agree with him.

Exactly. I think the bus method is a bit
hit-or-miss, for instance; sloppy. Funny
thing was, few disagreed with him about
chess programming, except those who
detected his over-reliance on processing
speed.


> I've certainly disagreed with him
> publicly several times. But if you stay polite, he will too.

As I recall, he was anything but "polite" to
his critics, but if you brown-nosed him, he
would be just as you say. That's the trouble
with the rich and famous, you know; they
develop a desperate /need/ for brown-nosing,
and that need grows into an insatiable
disease... ala Bobby Fischer's.


> If you start name calling or misquoting him, or picking his messages apart
> and putting them together to try and make it sound like he said something
> else (all of which I've seen), then he can get a bit hot under the collar.

Interesting, but I don't recall anyone doing that
here. Mr. Hyatt said enough crazy-sounding
things that his critics didn't /need/ to invent stuff.


> (Being misquoted etc. is one of the reasons he likes to quote entire
> messages when he replies. It's happened so often, espeically with certain
> people, that he now almost always quotes the entire message he's replying
> to.)

Even quoting an entire message may not be
good enough to place remarks into their proper
context.

Indeed, many times a poster will switch
threads, to muddy the waters or disassociate
his new comments from his earlier gaffes, so
even a single thread may not tell the whole
tale.


> I've also heard from a few other old time chess programmers who have
> privately told me they don't even want their name mentioned here in R.G.C.C
> because of all the flaming and trolling that has gone on around them.

Many of the trolls "live" in rgc.politics, which
is not the proper place for programming posts
anyway. I suppose there is no effective means
of preventing /others/ from cross-posting,
though.


> They got so disgusted with rgcc's behavior that they left and refuse to come back
> and LITERALLY don't even want their name mentioned in here.

Who cares? Nameless folks "want" this or
"want" that-- what does it matter. Let them
stay away, for it sounds like they could not
stand the heat. We saw what happened
when the great celebrity Raymond Keene
showed up here "to address criticism" of his
work. We saw that in fact the nutter came
here only to attack and ridicule his critics via
ad hominem, and that we are all better off
without such flotsam, for they contribute
only to further inflate their own egos.


> The reality is, RGCC is not a nice place for serious chess programmers.
> They've been harrassed so often over the years that none ever visit here
> anymore.

Very few of them have spent much time here,
and I suspect it is because they can't handle
criticism of their opinions on matters which
quite often extend well beyond the area of
chess-programming expertise. This is what
ultimately drove Bob Hyatt away-- he was
blasted by (the paranoid) Rolf Teuschen for
his deliberately provocative remarks regarding
driving a bus over certain criminals and the
like. Certainly, that had nothing to do with
chess, let alone Mr. Hyatt's area of expertise
in chess. There was no "innocent victim"
here, but rather a man who eagerly dug and
dug himself into a hole of his own making.


-- help bot







   
Date: 29 May 2008 20:52:21
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:26aa3a42-d850-44b4-ae7f-f99bcab12674@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 7:36 pm, "Guest" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Wrongheaded thinking. The top commercial
>> > programmers keep secrets so they can maintain
>> > their status. More helpful are those who are not
>
>> With reverse engineering done on all the top programs, there aren't too
>> many
>> secrets left, unless a competitor deliberately chooses *not* to know.
>> Which
>> is actually often the case with top chess programmers.
>
> Funny, but I never see discussion of this by
> the programmers. They sometimes complain

You wont in here. Let's be blunt... there aren't any real chess programmers
in here anymore.

Second, as I said, most serious chess programers don't do it. Too risky and
too much self esteem involved.

But there have definetly been cases of reverse engineering, cloning, etc.
over the years. There have even been cases of people acusing Hyatt of
CrayBlitz being a clone of some other program. And as per the rules of the
tournaments, he'd have to bring out the source code so the officials could
browse it to check. And in every case, the tournament organizers proved
them wrong, and after a while they'd cool off and admit they knew it wasn't
a clone.

If nothing else, take a look at Strelka 2.0 That's a fairly recent example.

I assume you are familiar enough with computer chess to have heard about
Stelka? It's been fairly recent and is a decent example of somebody reverse
engineering a program.


> about their programs being specifically
> targeted by the competition, as in tweaking
> for better results against, say, Fritz or Rybka,
> which is dismissed as *not* indicative of how
> well such programs might fare against
> humans.

Which is true. Playing against a computer is very different than playing
against a human.

Tuning your program against some other may help you win a tournament and be
famous, but it wont make your program play any better against humans.



>> > concerned about staying number one (or two, or
>> > three, etc.). As far as I know, the best help in
>> > the area of chess programming is not to be
>> > found here in rgc, and probably never has been.
>
>> Actually, it probably was for quite a few years because there wasn't many
>> other places to go.
>
> Nonsense. There are books about this, and
> magazines, and Web sites and email. In the
> case of GetClub, a book on how to write a
> chess program makes perfect sense.

(big snort)

How many books have you read on computer chess programming?

Most of them are either very basic (such as the books by Levy) or too
advanced (such as the 'Advances in..." and other reports on conferences), or
books on existing programs (such as Frey's or Levy's Computer Chess
comprndium). And of course, the ICCA.

But there are no good books on computer chess that take you all the way
through the basics to bitboards, IID, the subtlies of trans tables, etc.

There was enough published info you could manage to write a chess program on
your own, and to even have reasonable decent algorithms.

But it's a lot easier with a nice interactive forum or newsgroup to ask
questions in.


Also, you need to go and reread what you and I both said.

You were saying RGCC had *never* been a good place to get help, and I was
contradicting you.

I didn't say it *still* is.

Nowdays, there are lots of websites and forums and such and RGCC is a waste
of time that only brainless newbies come to, or old timers watch for
nostalgia.

There's no help to be found here anymore.

At best, there's the ocasional interesting discussion to break the spam,
flames, and trolling.


>> Conferences and publications like ICCAJ were helpful to some degree, but
>> not
>> in the way of somebody being stuck and needing help.
>
> Rank beginners might very well bore or annoy
> an advanced programmer-- especially one who
> has become ego-bloated on the wings of his
> programs' success.

That's true of any field.

That's one of the reasons Hyatt stands out. He does help newbies. I read
messages from him regularly where he's responding to a newbie or to at least
a beginner.

Verifiable fact. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read the chess
forums I've mentioned and read them for yourself.

You can go back years worth of recent messages to see how he responds.
True, in a newsgroup or forum, anybody can respond, so it's not like he has
to. But there are definetly times he helps beginners, and if any subject is
interesting, regardless of who started it, he'll take part in it.


>> The old days were different.
>
> "In some things, the old ways are best."

I would agree somewhat.... RGCC wouldn't be flooded with trolls and twits
and we could still have interesting computer chess conversations. But it
aint gonna change. And that's why the good chess programmers avoid this
place.



>> > I seem to recall that even back when Dr. Hyatt
>> > was posting here, he got entangled in egotistical
>>
>> And why should he be any different from anybody else?
>
> Fame, my boy. You would be surprised at
> what fame and riches can do to a person, if
> he is not careful. In my day, winners of the
> Olympic games were warned to remember
> they are mortal-- not gods!

They didn't, though... did they?

Few people do. So why should Hyatt or Thompson or Hsu or anybody else be
different?



>
>> I'm not saying Dr. Hyatt hasn't had his fair share of 'over the top'
>> discussions.
>>
>> I'm just saying that definetly happens in public newsgroups / forums.
>> Espeically unmoderated ones.
>
> You may have noticed that certain types of
> people tend to get inordinately touchy with
> their critics and with criticism in general. It

Yeah, I have noticed that.

When somebody has facts and years of experience to back up their words, it
can be frustrating when some newbie pops in and says that you are an idiot.


> seems to me the one thing they have in
> common is fame. Here are just a few of the
> people who, as we have seen, cannot handle
> any criticism whatever-- even constructive
> criticism:
> Larry Evans, Ray Keene, Bob Hyatt... all of
> them famous celebrities, if you will.

Not having talked with Larry Evans or Ray Keene I can't comment on them.

I can disagree about Bob Hyatt because I've been reading messages from him
and talking with him for several years.

Have you?




>
>
>> > One of Dr. Hyatt's harshest critics was a Mr.
>> > Teuschen, who apparently was handicapped
>> > and who took great offense at some ideas of Dr.
>> > Hyatt's which had nothing whatever to do with
>> > chess. I got the impression of ego-bloat, where
>> > the great success of CrayBlitz had gone to the
>>
>> By that time, he probably was no longer doing CrayBlitz.
>
> Irrelevant, as the swelling does not go down
> when one switches hardware.

??!

And how would you know?

Do you talk with him?

Have you met him?

CrayBlitz was a *long* time ago.

You definetly seem to have formed an opinion (justified or not) of him based
on somoething that might have occured 10 or even 20 years ago.



>> He's been doing Crafty for quite a few years.
>
> Duh! I pointed out the fact that such programs
> as Crafty were free to Sanny, a long time ago.
> His response is always the same: please analyze
> this game and tell me where my program messed
> up.

Not what I was talking about.


>> And it's also worth pointing out that any ego he might have had about
>> CrayBlitz got deflated quite a few years back when CB lost the world
>> title.
>
> If you call what happened to BH "deflation", you
> need to take a course in economics! The man's
> head did not deflate substantially; like many
> others, he came up with excuses for why his
> program did not win "this time".

Well.... Based on what?

Have you talked with him?

Do you know him?

Have you discussed anything with him?

He doesn't still live on past glories of how CrayBlitz was. He doesn't go
around saying "Crafty is the best program there is, the other person
cheated" (or some such.)

He's very much aware his program is definetly not in the top spot, in spite
of the hardware he has access to at UAB.



>> As I said in one of my messages, Hyatt hasn't had the top program in a
>> long
>> time.
>
> In fact, his Crafty program is not even one of
> the top-rated *free* engines anymore.

Precisely!

And his program is huge compared to some of the other programs.

That can be one heck of an ego deflater, can't it....

That's why I was saying that if he had any ego inflation back from his
CrayBlitz days in the early to mid 80's, it's had more than enough time and
incentive to deflate.



>> But if it did occur during the years when CrayBlitz was on top, then he
>> probably did have an ego. Not too uncommon. When you have the world
>> championship program and you get to play with the world's fastest
>> supercomputers, then you might indeed get a bit of an ego.
>
> Not me. I happen to believe that the speed of
> the Cray super-computer is not my doing. And
> having access to such a machine -- for free --
> is also not my doing.

No, it's not your doing.

But when you do easily have access to hardware that is vastly more powerful
than your opponent's, then you can start to get a little smug.



>> But don't worry.... it got deflated long ago.
>
> In that case, he could come back and there
> would be no "Larry Evans" style problems.
> Don't hold your breath!

Why would he want to come back here?

Seriously. There's nothing here anymore.



>
>
>> > program their chess engines, I seriously doubt
>> > the portrayal of Dr. Hyatt's disappearance as
>> > a great loss to rgc is realistic. It reminds me
>>
>> You probably wouldn't say that if you had been following other computer
>> chess forums where he regularly participates and has helped hundreds of
>> chess programmers, helped test new ideas, etc. etc.
>
> Ah, I read a little about how he helped folks
> on ICC or wherever. But here in rgc he was
> just an opinionated buffoon, sort of like Ray
> Keene or Larry Evans.

"read a little"... I guess that sums it up.




>> But I have followed computer chess for years and seen him in the forums
>> etc., and it is safe to say he is a very helpful person when it comes to
>> computer chess.
>
> Many people suggested contacting him via
> email or some other method. That's because
> nobody was doling out much help here in rgc,
> where folks like Sanny look for it.

Emailing somebody for private help is always a bad thing to do.

Help should be public, so everybody can benefit.

And no, there isn't much help her in RGCC. It's dead. The trolls and off
topic discussions and flaming killed it years ago.

NOBODY truely interested in computer chess comes here for help and *stays*
here.

ANYBODY who is truely interested in computer chess will find better places
to go. If they don't, and try to depend on RGCC, then they deserve no help.
There are simply too many better places to go and be a part of hundreds of
other chess programmers of all strengths and skills. In here, you can hear
the crickets chirping.



>> You don't have to always agree with him.
>
> Exactly. I think the bus method is a bit
> hit-or-miss, for instance; sloppy. Funny
> thing was, few disagreed with him about
> chess programming, except those who
> detected his over-reliance on processing
> speed.

Well... I guess that includes me, because I have publicly said several times
he depends too much on the hardware.

But, I've also seen others disagree.

And as long as you are polite, there's no problem.


>> I've certainly disagreed with him
>> publicly several times. But if you stay polite, he will too.
>
> As I recall, he was anything but "polite" to
> his critics, but if you brown-nosed him, he

Most people do end up responding in kind. Names, insults etc. do tend to
get returned on the internet.

Not like the old "CB radio" days on CompuServe.


> would be just as you say. That's the trouble
> with the rich and famous, you know; they
> develop a desperate /need/ for brown-nosing,
> and that need grows into an insatiable
> disease... ala Bobby Fischer's.
>
>
>> If you start name calling or misquoting him, or picking his messages
>> apart
>> and putting them together to try and make it sound like he said something
>> else (all of which I've seen), then he can get a bit hot under the
>> collar.
>
> Interesting, but I don't recall anyone doing that
> here. Mr. Hyatt said enough crazy-sounding
> things that his critics didn't /need/ to invent stuff.

Oh, there were.... Trust me on that.

And there were a couple who went out of their way to try and anoy him.

And it's happened in the forums, too.


>
>
>> (Being misquoted etc. is one of the reasons he likes to quote entire
>> messages when he replies. It's happened so often, espeically with
>> certain
>> people, that he now almost always quotes the entire message he's replying
>> to.)
>
> Even quoting an entire message may not be
> good enough to place remarks into their proper
> context.

No, it's not perfect. But it's better than nothing.

Most readers (and google groups and dejanews) and forums do allow for
threads, so you can try to follow a particular discussion thread. But it
can be hard when there are 50 or 100 messages and a half dozen people are
talking on different aspects of the original post.

But quoting the original message and the reply and replies and the rereplies
etc. is better than nothing.




> Indeed, many times a poster will switch
> threads, to muddy the waters or disassociate
> his new comments from his earlier gaffes, so
> even a single thread may not tell the whole
> tale.

That can happen.

Sometimes there is good reason. Like the subject has gotten too far from
the original subject.

But it's just an aspect of having conversations with several people all
talking at the same time. It gets confusing and difficult to follow.




>> I've also heard from a few other old time chess programmers who have
>> privately told me they don't even want their name mentioned here in
>> R.G.C.C
>> because of all the flaming and trolling that has gone on around them.
>
> Many of the trolls "live" in rgc.politics, which
> is not the proper place for programming posts
> anyway. I suppose there is no effective means
> of preventing /others/ from cross-posting,
> though.

Even RGCC gets its share of off topic stuff. Look through the messages for
the past year and I bet less than 1% are actually suitable for this
newsgroup.


>> They got so disgusted with rgcc's behavior that they left and refuse to
>> come back
>> and LITERALLY don't even want their name mentioned in here.
>
> Who cares? Nameless folks "want" this or
> "want" that-- what does it matter. Let them
> stay away, for it sounds like they could not

I wa simply pointing out that some of the old timers who did used to
participate here got so burned by trolls, flames and "who the hell care's"
attitude (such as yourself) that they wanted nothing to do with here
anymore.

Hyatt is definetly not unique in that aspect.

None of the old timers (and most of the current generation) wont touch this
newsgroup.

Even though I'm not a major chess programmer, if they knew I was over here,
they'd probably say "&^%#! why were you there???!" There's a definet stigma
against this newsgroup.



> stand the heat. We saw what happened
> when the great celebrity Raymond Keene
> showed up here "to address criticism" of his
> work. We saw that in fact the nutter came
> here only to attack and ridicule his critics via
> ad hominem, and that we are all better off
> without such flotsam, for they contribute
> only to further inflate their own egos.
>
>
>> The reality is, RGCC is not a nice place for serious chess programmers.
>> They've been harrassed so often over the years that none ever visit here
>> anymore.
>
> Very few of them have spent much time here,
> and I suspect it is because they can't handle
> criticism of their opinions on matters which

You seem to be misinformed, because they handle it just fine in forums....

But then again, 99% of the participants behave themselves, too. Unlike with
public newsgroups.



I don't think we are making much progress in this discussion, so why don't
we both agree to disagree. That the other person is wrong, doesn't know
what they are talking about, etc. etc.








> quite often extend well beyond the area of
> chess-programming expertise. This is what
> ultimately drove Bob Hyatt away-- he was
> blasted by (the paranoid) Rolf Teuschen for
> his deliberately provocative remarks regarding
> driving a bus over certain criminals and the
> like. Certainly, that had nothing to do with
> chess, let alone Mr. Hyatt's area of expertise
> in chess. There was no "innocent victim"
> here, but rather a man who eagerly dug and
> dug himself into a hole of his own making.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>





  
Date: 29 May 2008 15:54:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 29, 6:45 am, "ave" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Not really. I'm well aware of Rybka's status but I couldn't tell you
> > who wrote it. I could find out easily but I don't know off the top of
> > my head.
>
> But, are you:
>
> a) Writing your own chess engine.
> b) Continuously comparing your own chess engine against Rybka.
>
> You would think, if either of these were true. You would investigate other
> chess engines (and the more 'famous' they are, the more interest you would
> have in them). Read interviews with the developers to glean insight, read
> the webpage. Read investigations.
>
> If anyone is even slightly serious (and I mean 'slightly' by just writing
> one in your spare time for fun) about writing a chess engine there's some
> famous engines out there that I would be investigating purely to see if
> there were any insights on what makes it so 'good'.
>
> I would expect someone seriously developing a chess engine, to know about
> Rybka and its developer simply because it is a strong and famous engine. I
> wouldn't expect a hobbyist to know the developers name "off the top of their
> head", but I would expect some sort of "ahh, i know this one... but I can't
> remember!" reaction.
>
> Certainly, they would know who didn't write it.


Wrongheaded thinking. The top commercial
programmers keep secrets so they can maintain
their status. More helpful are those who are not
concerned about staying number one (or two, or
three, etc.). As far as I know, the best help in
the area of chess programming is not to be
found here in rgc, and probably never has been.

I seem to recall that even back when Dr. Hyatt
was posting here, he got entangled in egotistical
battles with certain critics, who... it is all so
vague in my memory after all this time... who I
think pointed out some areas in which Dr. Hyatt
may have gone over the top.

One of Dr. Hyatt's harshest critics was a Mr.
Teuschen, who apparently was handicapped
and who took great offense at some ideas of Dr.
Hyatt's which had nothing whatever to do with
chess. I got the impression of ego-bloat, where
the great success of CrayBlitz had gone to the
good doctor's head, causing swelling-- not
unlike Paul Morphy in the bathtub. I also got
the impression that Mr. Teuschen was a bit
paranoid, thinking ordinary folks were "out to
get" the handicapped.

As the discussions I read here did not really
center on teaching "Sannys" how to properly
program their chess engines, I seriously doubt
the portrayal of Dr. Hyatt's disappearance as
a great loss to rgc is realistic. It reminds me
of the more recent sudden disappearance of
another ego-bloated buffoon, the world's
foremost everything, Raymond Keene... .


-- help bot


   
Date: 29 May 2008 18:36:53
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Wrongheaded thinking. The top commercial
> programmers keep secrets so they can maintain
> their status. More helpful are those who are not

With reverse engineering done on all the top programs, there aren't too many
secrets left, unless a competitor deliberately chooses *not* to know. Which
is actually often the case with top chess programmers.

> concerned about staying number one (or two, or
> three, etc.). As far as I know, the best help in
> the area of chess programming is not to be
> found here in rgc, and probably never has been.

Actually, it probably was for quite a few years because there wasn't many
other places to go.

Conferences and publications like ICCAJ were helpful to some degree, but not
in the way of somebody being stuck and needing help.

The old days were different.


> I seem to recall that even back when Dr. Hyatt
> was posting here, he got entangled in egotistical

And why should he be any different from anybody else?

I'm not saying Dr. Hyatt hasn't had his fair share of 'over the top'
discussions.

I'm just saying that definetly happens in public newsgroups / forums.
Espeically unmoderated ones.



> One of Dr. Hyatt's harshest critics was a Mr.
> Teuschen, who apparently was handicapped
> and who took great offense at some ideas of Dr.
> Hyatt's which had nothing whatever to do with
> chess. I got the impression of ego-bloat, where
> the great success of CrayBlitz had gone to the

By that time, he probably was no longer doing CrayBlitz.

He's been doing Crafty for quite a few years.

And it's also worth pointing out that any ego he might have had about
CrayBlitz got deflated quite a few years back when CB lost the world title.

As I said in one of my messages, Hyatt hasn't had the top program in a long
time.


But if it did occur during the years when CrayBlitz was on top, then he
probably did have an ego. Not too uncommon. When you have the world
championship program and you get to play with the world's fastest
supercomputers, then you might indeed get a bit of an ego.

But don't worry.... it got deflated long ago.


> program their chess engines, I seriously doubt
> the portrayal of Dr. Hyatt's disappearance as
> a great loss to rgc is realistic. It reminds me

You probably wouldn't say that if you had been following other computer
chess forums where he regularly participates and has helped hundreds of
chess programmers, helped test new ideas, etc. etc.


I do not know Dr. Hyatt personally, so I can say nothing about his
personality, his life style, what music he listens to, etc. etc.

But I have followed computer chess for years and seen him in the forums
etc., and it is safe to say he is a very helpful person when it comes to
computer chess.

You don't have to always agree with him. I've certainly disagreed with him
publicly several times. But if you stay polite, he will too.

If you start name calling or misquoting him, or picking his messages apart
and putting them together to try and make it sound like he said something
else (all of which I've seen), then he can get a bit hot under the collar.
(Being misquoted etc. is one of the reasons he likes to quote entire
messages when he replies. It's happened so often, espeically with certain
people, that he now almost always quotes the entire message he's replying
to.)



I've also heard from a few other old time chess programmers who have
privately told me they don't even want their name mentioned here in R.G.C.C
because of all the flaming and trolling that has gone on around them. They
got so disgusted with rgcc's behavior that they left and refuse to come back
and LITERALLY don't even want their name mentioned in here.


The reality is, RGCC is not a nice place for serious chess programmers.
They've been harrassed so often over the years that none ever visit here
anymore.






  
Date: 29 May 2008 15:37:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 29, 6:16 am, Martin Brown <

  
Date: 29 May 2008 10:11:20
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> > Who is Dr. Hyatt? I read a few lines about him. He was someChess
> > Expert. Has he developed Fritz / Rybka /ChessMaster???
>
> The mere fact you post this, when it could easily been found out via google
> simply shows your lack of interest in the subject. So I'm not sure why you
> are even asking.

Yes I was searching google groups abt Dr Hyatt and got a little bit
about him.


> Considering the number of times you've mentioned Rybka, the implication
> above that you don't know who wrote it boggles the mind tbh.

Ofcourse I do not bother who wrote which engine. I just played it
because it is best Engine in the World. Earlier I used to play Jester.
Again I do not know who wrote Jester.

There are so many engines: IVAN, Chess Master, Tiger Chess, Majesty
Chess, Crafty, Fritz, Rybka, Jester and I have played a few But I
never remember who writes those engines.

Do you remember who has writtern Doom, Harry Potter, Prince, Dave,
Hugo and Other games? I just play the games and do not remember who
writes it.


> > If Dr Hyatt is present here let me know how can I improve theGetClub
> > game further.
>
> After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that either you are
> age 9. Or that english is not your first language. As I cannot understand
> why you continue to post in such a mind-numbingly annoying way. And the

My mind is yound but I am old. Yes I know 5 Languages. So I do not
have Mastery on each. But I can send my message enough for people to
understand them in all 5 Languages.

> mentioned two reasons are the only explanation I can think of. Neither of
> these are bad things, ofcourse. But I really do think you should reconsider
> the way you phrase your postings. As their current form will not win you
> many friends.

I have one very good friend : Help Bot. He has helped me develop
GetClub a lot. I admire his intelligence. He is the only player who
can beat GetClub Higher Levels without taking help from Computers.

> > I read somewhere that he went away because of some fight with people
> > on this newsgroup. I am missing his messages, let him come back and
> > enlighten us with the knowledge he has.

I read a few messages where I find he left group because of some
conflict with people on newsgroup.

> Let me see, first you do not know who he is... You do not know what he has
> done... And you do not know why he went away... Yet you're missing his
> messages.... /scratches head

By Missing I mean unable to read them as he has posted 1000s of
messages I cant read all to gather the information. So I asked about
him to those who know him well.

> And, also, I'm sure no-one is preventing him from coming back but that he
> chooses himself to not come back. And also just as sure your post is not
> likely to convince him to return (more likely the opposite).
>
> Also, I have yet to see any improvement to the getclub website.

Ofcourse you will see it. By your continued support GetClub is playing
such strong games today.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




   
Date: 29 May 2008 13:00:17
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > Who is Dr. Hyatt? I read a few lines about him. He was someChess
>> > Expert. Has he developed Fritz / Rybka /ChessMaster???
>>
>> The mere fact you post this, when it could easily been found out via
>> google
>> simply shows your lack of interest in the subject. So I'm not sure why
>> you
>> are even asking.
>
> Yes I was searching google groups abt Dr Hyatt and got a little bit
> about him.

I bet you could find more than a little about him, with very little effort.

You'd almost have to make a point not to find out about him.

After all, he's the **only** person in the world to spend 40 years (yes, 40
years!! He started in 1968) doing chess programming. He's one of the most
knowledable and respected and helpful people in computer chess.

The odds are good that if you've thought of it, he's already tried it. He
was doing some stuff back in the 80's with CrayBlitz that many people are
just now experimenting with.

He doesn't know everything, of course. There are still lots of new things
in computer chess happening every year. Take the 'magic' method for
bitboard manipulation. That was developed just recently. Gerd's
kindergarten method for doing bitboard attacks. IID in chess searching.
And so on.

But his experience and knowledge easily outweighs everybody elses.

That's not to say he still has the best program in the world. He doesn't.
Different styles of programming do different results etc.

And personally, I think he places too much emphesis on raw computer power.
He's been using massive computing power ever since he moved Blitz over to a
Cray-1 supercomputer. He's used to it. I can't really blame him for using
a 256 cluster for tournaments if he has access, but I think he depends on it
a bit too much over refinement of the program. (Although in all fairness,
this past year he has put a lot of work into cleaning up his program so he
can more easily do that kind of work. And in all fairness, he's a much
better chess programmer than I am.)






>
>> Considering the number of times you've mentioned Rybka, the implication
>> above that you don't know who wrote it boggles the mind tbh.
>
> Ofcourse I do not bother who wrote which engine. I just played it
> because it is best Engine in the World. Earlier I used to play Jester.
> Again I do not know who wrote Jester.
>
> There are so many engines: IVAN, Chess Master, Tiger Chess, Majesty
> Chess, Crafty, Fritz, Rybka, Jester and I have played a few But I
> never remember who writes those engines.

There are some people in some fields you automatically remember. Especially
if you have an interest in that field.

Who was the first person on the moon.

Who won the world championship in your favorite sport.

Who is the singer that does your favorite song.

And so on.







    
Date: 29 May 2008 14:50:20
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Guest" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:zbC%[email protected]...
>> Yes I was searching google groups abt Dr Hyatt and got a little bit
>> about him.
>
> I bet you could find more than a little about him, with very little
> effort.
>
> You'd almost have to make a point not to find out about him.
>
> After all, he's the **only** person in the world to spend 40 years (yes,
> 40
> years!! He started in 1968) doing chess programming. He's one of the
> most
> knowledable and respected and helpful people in computer chess.

I need to correct myself about that.

I don't know why I said 1968, because it wasn't. He started in 1975 and
entered his first tournament in 1976 with Blitz IV.

It was Slate & Atkin who started in 1968, but I'm surprised I confused those
dates for several messages. Must be the heat causing brain rot.

So Hyatt has only been in computer chess 33 years, not 40. That sounds a
bit better, because that makes him 7 years younger and means he can be
around 7 more years.

He is still the only one still invoved in computer chess after 33 years,
though.

Sorry about my wrong date.





   
Date: 29 May 2008 18:40:26
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> Do you remember who has writtern Doom, Harry Potter, Prince, Dave,
> Hugo and Other games? I just play the games and do not remember who
> writes it.

Yes, I remember who has written Doom and Harry Potter o_O (not the other's
cause I dont know what they are :).

> My mind is yound but I am old. Yes I know 5 Languages. So I do not
> have Mastery on each. But I can send my message enough for people to
> understand them in all 5 Languages.

It makes more sense then, I am not attacking you in any way. But the way
your posts are phrased invites people to dislike you. And whilst there is a
reason, most people will dislike you anyway. And it is how communication
works, and how your communication is received that effects how people will
respond.

> I have one very good friend : Help Bot. He has helped me develop
> GetClub a lot. I admire his intelligence. He is the only player who
> can beat GetClub Higher Levels without taking help from Computers.

Yes, help-bot has provided you with much help. And whilst I realise this
isn't the largest community of computer chess developers\hobbyists, you
could get many more.

ave




  
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: What has this group become?


  
Date: 29 May 2008 10:59:34
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> Who is Dr. Hyatt? I read a few lines about him. He was some Chess
> Expert. Has he developed Fritz / Rybka / Chess Master???

The mere fact you post this, when it could easily been found out via google
simply shows your lack of interest in the subject. So I'm not sure why you
are even asking.

Considering the number of times you've mentioned Rybka, the implication
above that you don't know who wrote it boggles the mind tbh.

> If Dr Hyatt is present here let me know how can I improve the GetClub
> game further.

After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that either you are
age 9. Or that english is not your first language. As I cannot understand
why you continue to post in such a mind-numbingly annoying way. And the
mentioned two reasons are the only explanation I can think of. Neither of
these are bad things, ofcourse. But I really do think you should reconsider
the way you phrase your postings. As their current form will not win you
many friends.

> I read somewhere that he went away because of some fight with people
> on this newsgroup. I am missing his messages, let him come back and
> enlighten us with the knowledge he has.

Let me see, first you do not know who he is... You do not know what he has
done... And you do not know why he went away... Yet you're missing his
messages.... /scratches head

And, also, I'm sure no-one is preventing him from coming back but that he
chooses himself to not come back. And also just as sure your post is not
likely to convince him to return (more likely the opposite).

Also, I have yet to see any improvement to the getclub website.

ave




   
Date: 30 May 2008 09:17:35
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> And he is too cheap to buy his own copy of Fritz/Shredder/Rybka/Hiarcs etc=
and
> do his own comparisons and analysis, but instead, posts here at every
> opportunity with a question on how to improve and a link to his bullshit
> website. =A0The REAL reason he posts here and the ONLY reason he posts her=
e is
> to drive traffic.

I have Rybka and I play GetClub against it. Rybka alway wins but that
do not let me understand why it win. Only Humans can find the mistakes
and suggest improvements.

And with Help of good players GetClub has become very strong enough to
beat 90% of the players by Beginner Level itself.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




   
Date: 30 May 2008 03:22:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On May 30, 2:07=A0pm, "ave" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >GetClubGame uses none of the above methods. I think I should read
> > them and see what these Clusters are may be these again improve the
> >GetClubChess.
>
> I am shocked again :) Slightly impressed that you have a workingchess
> program at all too...
>
> The thing is, there are years upon years upon years of research into
> computerchessAI. There are doctors and GM's and god knows how many other
> people researching the best methods of implementing it. There are people
> who're paid to find the best way to implement one. Ignoring all that, you
> are never going to be able to compete with otherchessprograms that do use
> the huge background of information.
>
> Rybka (or whatever famouschessengine you can think) is always going to be
> faster, smarter, sexier thanGetClubbecause it is taking on the information=

> gleaned from all these years of research.
>
> > Can you suggest me a site where These things are explained in simple
> > language?
>
> What I would suggest is going towww.google.comand searching for something
> along the lines of "computerchessAI programming". And just start reading.
> Then, when you come across something that interests you but you dont
> entirely understand, ask questions on forums (this one, or another). Don't=

> demand answers, just ask. And engage communication with whoever answers
> (assuming they appear like they want to help).
>
> You are many many times more likely to get useful responces in that way th=
an
> simple asking "tell me how to make it better" by having a proper discussio=
n
> topic.
>
> ave

Good point.

Thanks

Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 29 May 2008 22:51:19
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> You mean you developed minimax, negamax, alpha-beta, PVS, transpostion
> tables, null-move, etc. etc. all by yourself, without any help or articles
> or references....

GetClub Game uses none of the above methods. I think I should read
them and see what these Clusters are may be these again improve the
GetClub Chess.

Can you suggest me a site where These things are explained in simple
language?

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


    
Date: 30 May 2008 10:54:47
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:607f490a-7048-44d7-8b59-17ef4f9f0e54@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> You mean you developed minimax, negamax, alpha-beta, PVS, transpostion
>> tables, null-move, etc. etc. all by yourself, without any help or
>> articles
>> or references....
>
> GetClub Game uses none of the above methods. I think I should read
> them and see what these Clusters are may be these again improve the
> GetClub Chess.

What method does it use? (You may have explained in it detail in previous
messages over the past months, but I rarely frequent this group and don't
check every message.)

Something along a static evaluation of the root moves themselves, with no
search?

Only a limited search using only plausible moves? (ie: a selective or
knowledge based search?)


> Can you suggest me a site where These things are explained in simple
> language?


A google search would help. The old Bruce Morland site used to have a
decent description but I think it's been down for a long time.


Here's a message I just recently posted about good places to go rather than
RGCC.

****
"ave" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to be fairly sincere here, I'm a software developer by day and
> I come to this newsgroup as I was 'thinking' of doing a chess engine in my
> spare time. And haven't actually found anything useful in that regard here
> so far, all I know was that today, yesterday and the day before GetClub
> was 'significantly' improved ;)

You wont find anything useful here anymore. Too much spam, too much non
computer chess talk, too many trolls. The only reason I even bother to
check in occasionally is just on the off chance something interesting is
going on, and to tell programmers not to waste their time here.


Go over to the computer chess club forums (talkchess) and the new
chessprogramming wiki.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewforum.php?start=0&f=7&topic_view=flat

(Requires registration to post. They wont tolerate spam etc. As long as
you are polite, you are welcome to ask questions and learn. Newbies come
there regularly and ask questions.)

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/



You could also go over to the archives of the old Talkchess forum. (They
changed forum software and lost years worth of messages.) The oldest stuff
is lost (back when Ken thompson and others participated!!) but there are
still many years worth of useful info that can be searched for.

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/


You could also go over to the winboard forums. They have a somewhat small
programming section, along with a section on general winboard stuff. It's
under new management.

http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewforum.php?f=4

****






    
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: What has this group become?


    
Date: 30 May 2008 10:07:45
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> GetClub Game uses none of the above methods. I think I should read
> them and see what these Clusters are may be these again improve the
> GetClub Chess.

I am shocked again :) Slightly impressed that you have a working chess
program at all too...

The thing is, there are years upon years upon years of research into
computer chess AI. There are doctors and GM's and god knows how many other
people researching the best methods of implementing it. There are people
who're paid to find the best way to implement one. Ignoring all that, you
are never going to be able to compete with other chess programs that do use
the huge background of information.

Rybka (or whatever famous chess engine you can think) is always going to be
faster, smarter, sexier than GetClub because it is taking on the information
gleaned from all these years of research.

> Can you suggest me a site where These things are explained in simple
> language?

What I would suggest is going to www.google.com and searching for something
along the lines of "computer chess AI programming". And just start reading.
Then, when you come across something that interests you but you dont
entirely understand, ask questions on forums (this one, or another). Don't
demand answers, just ask. And engage communication with whoever answers
(assuming they appear like they want to help).

You are many many times more likely to get useful responces in that way than
simple asking "tell me how to make it better" by having a proper discussion
topic.

ave




   
Date: 30 May 2008 05:41:05
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



ave wrote:

(To the GetClub spammer)
>
>After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that either you are
>age 9. Or that english is not your first language. As I cannot understand
>why you continue to post in such a mind-numbingly annoying way. And the
>mentioned two reasons are the only explanation I can think of. Neither of
>these are bad things, ofcourse. But I really do think you should reconsider
>the way you phrase your postings. As their current form will not win you
>many friends.

The purpose of the posts is to spam the newsgroup with the ads
at the bottom of the posts. The content doesn't matter, so he
just fills in the unimportant stuff above the ad with whatever
pops into his mind at the moment.

And everyone who replies is encouraging him to increase his
spam output.




   
Date: 29 May 2008 10:23:51
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> I am not talking about going out and learning the developers name just for
> the sake of learning his name. If you read enough articles about something
> or by someone, you generally remember their name simply from seeing it so
> often and it being associated by something.

I have not read any Chess article in my Life. I am not even a good
Chess Player. I just play chess Sometimes. Just for fun.


> > It's a little surprising for a current
> > developer not to know such things but it hardly `boggles the mind', as
> > you wrote.

I have very little time for Chess game and am not getting enough money
out of Chess So I am not giving my full time on the Chess Program.

I just wanted it for average players and its working fine.

Only 1-2 players can beat the higher level. So my mission is complete.

However if I get money incentive I can make GetClub better than Ryka/
Fritz etc. But now I cant support this game financially. So Till I
earn a few bucks out I will not improve it further.

I have wasted a lot of my time on this program.

Todays world you need money for everything. So I am waiting for some
money to come then I will improve it further.

I do not understand how other programs are selling so well. And I get
a lot of negative response. It was very hard to develop this program
now I am tired of it.

Bye
Sanny



    
Date: 29 May 2008 19:06:11
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> I have not read any Chess article in my Life. I am not even a good
> Chess Player. I just play chess Sometimes. Just for fun.

You have written your chess engine.. and not looked at any papers about
chess engine programming? Not examined why certain (mentioning no names)
other engines are regarded so highly?

There is so much research and background information on Chess engine
programming.

To write a *good* chess engine these days, you don't need to be a GM (unlike
that author of Rybka). But you do need to have an interest in chess engines.
Otherwise your engine is going to get it's ass kicked by other authors who
do :)

> However if I get money incentive I can make GetClub better than Ryka/
> Fritz etc. But now I cant support this game financially. So Till I
> earn a few bucks out I will not improve it further.

I will go out on a limb here, and say, if you do not read research. If you
have no deeper interest than the desire for money, you will not ever make an
engine better than Rybka.

> I have wasted a lot of my time on this program.

Whether it's the best engine in the world or not, whether it makes you
millions or not, the fact it is there and working is something to be proud
of at least. Unless you abhor the program and had no fun developing it, I
wouldn't say you wasted your time on it.

> I do not understand how other programs are selling so well. And I get
> a lot of negative response. It was very hard to develop this program
> now I am tired of it.

I will say, a lot of the negative responces are themselves in responce to
the way your postings are phrased. You make demands out of hand and expect
people to tell you whats wrong, whilst giving the appearance you wont try to
find out yourself and expect everyone else to do it for you.

I'm not saying this is what you do (I have no idea! But would like to think
not). What I am saying is that it comes across like that.

There is also, almost every day, you post something along the lines of
"GetClub has been significantly improved now play GetClub it will surely
beat..." when it hasn't really been significantly improved.

If you did make a significant improvement now, and then reported it everyone
would simply be thinking "what? again? hohum". Significant improvements
don't come in a single day, unless you found a nasty bug deep inside
somewhere. And then posting about it and how you fixed it would most likely
garner much more interest than simply posting "getclub has been
significantly improved!" for the sixth time in 5 days :)

You are in this (rather small, I notice, but so be it...) community and yet
you offer no communication, except to either ask for people to tell you how
to make money, or to tell people to play GetClub chess. There is no
involvement or engagement of the other community members. Doing this would
probably get so much more interest, help and friends. As well as probably
lead to information that does 'significantly improve' GetClub.

People mention the lack of tactics or strategy of GetClub, they say it's
poor in the end-game. And your responce is... "today GetClub has been
significantly improved...". Why not something more along, "hmmm, well
GetClub's evaluation does this... what do you think is wrong with it..." or
"GetClubs end game does .... anyone have any thoughts on improvements..".

I'm trying to be fairly sincere here, I'm a software developer by day and I
come to this newsgroup as I was 'thinking' of doing a chess engine in my
spare time. And haven't actually found anything useful in that regard here
so far, all I know was that today, yesterday and the day before GetClub was
'significantly' improved ;)

ave




     
Date: 29 May 2008 13:22:35
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"ave" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to be fairly sincere here, I'm a software developer by day and
> I come to this newsgroup as I was 'thinking' of doing a chess engine in my
> spare time. And haven't actually found anything useful in that regard here
> so far, all I know was that today, yesterday and the day before GetClub
> was 'significantly' improved ;)

You wont find anything useful here anymore. Too much spam, too much non
computer chess talk, too many trolls. The only reason I even bother to
check in occasionally is just on the off chance something interesting is
going on, and to tell programmers not to waste their time here.


Go over to the computer chess club forums (talkchess) and the new
chessprogramming wiki.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewforum.php?start=0&f=7&topic_view=flat

(Requires registration to post. They wont tolerate spam etc. As long as
you are polite, you are welcome to ask questions and learn. Newbies come
there regularly and ask questions.)

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/



You could also go over to the archives of the old Talkchess forum. (They
changed forum software and lost years worth of messages.) The oldest stuff
is lost (back when Ken thompson and others participated!!) but there are
still many years worth of useful info that can be searched for.

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/


You could also go over to the winboard forums. They have a somewhat small
programming section, along with a section on general winboard stuff. It's
under new management.

http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewforum.php?f=4





    
Date: 29 May 2008 12:58:54
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I am not talking about going out and learning the developers name just
>> for
>> the sake of learning his name. If you read enough articles about
>> something
>> or by someone, you generally remember their name simply from seeing it so
>> often and it being associated by something.
>
> I have not read any Chess article in my Life. I am not even a good
> Chess Player. I just play chess Sometimes. Just for fun.

Really? Never read any chess article at all?

You mean you developed minimax, negamax, alpha-beta, PVS, transpostion
tables, null-move, etc. etc. all by yourself, without any help or articles
or references....


Alright, maybe I'm being a bit sarcastic there, but to say you've read no
articles on computer chess programming is a little hard to believe.


>> > It's a little surprising for a current
>> > developer not to know such things but it hardly `boggles the mind', as
>> > you wrote.
>
> I have very little time for Chess game and am not getting enough money
> out of Chess So I am not giving my full time on the Chess Program.

That's why chess programming is a hobby for everybody but a couple dozen
people.

There's very little money in chess programming and most of that involves a
few full time people or companies.

Everybody else does it as a hobby.


> I just wanted it for average players and its working fine.
>
> Only 1-2 players can beat the higher level. So my mission is complete.
>
> However if I get money incentive I can make GetClub better than Ryka/
> Fritz etc. But now I cant support this game financially. So Till I
> earn a few bucks out I will not improve it further.
>
> I have wasted a lot of my time on this program.

It's only wasted if you started out with a goal of making money.

If you started out because you wanted to or were having fun, then it wasn't
wasted.

But based on your messages.... yes, you wasted your time.



> Todays world you need money for everything. So I am waiting for some
> money to come then I will improve it further.

Keep waiting.

It doesn't happen that often in computer chess.



> I do not understand how other programs are selling so well. And I get
> a lot of negative response. It was very hard to develop this program
> now I am tired of it.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>





     
Date: 30 May 2008 05:15:35
From:
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:58:54 -0500, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote:


>> I do not understand how other programs are selling so well. And I get
>> a lot of negative response. It was very hard to develop this program
>> now I am tired of it.
>>
>> Bye
>> Sanny
>>

They are selling well because they are quality programs. You get
negative responses because you constantly spam the newsgroups.

Im glad you are tired of it... please quit... maybe then you will stop
constantly spamming these newsgroups.

don't bother responding, I have you on my twit filter...

J.Lohner


   
Date: 29 May 2008 11:20:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
ave <[email protected] > wrote:
> Considering the number of times you've mentioned Rybka, the
> implication above that you don't know who wrote it boggles the mind
> tbh.

Not really. I'm well aware of Rybka's status but I couldn't tell you
who wrote it. I could find out easily but I don't know off the top of
my head.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Happy Dish (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish that makes your
troubles melt away but it's covered
in salt!


    
Date: 30 May 2008 00:04:15
From: nobody
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
David Richerby wrote:
>
> ave <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Considering the number of times you've mentioned Rybka, the
> > implication above that you don't know who wrote it boggles the mind
> > tbh.
>
> Not really. I'm well aware of Rybka's status but I couldn't tell you
> who wrote it. I could find out easily but I don't know off the top of
> my head.

Do you get invited to many parties Dave?..


    
Date: 29 May 2008 11:45:42
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> Not really. I'm well aware of Rybka's status but I couldn't tell you
> who wrote it. I could find out easily but I don't know off the top of
> my head.

But, are you:

a) Writing your own chess engine.
b) Continuously comparing your own chess engine against Rybka.

You would think, if either of these were true. You would investigate other
chess engines (and the more 'famous' they are, the more interest you would
have in them). Read interviews with the developers to glean insight, read
the webpage. Read investigations.

If anyone is even slightly serious (and I mean 'slightly' by just writing
one in your spare time for fun) about writing a chess engine there's some
famous engines out there that I would be investigating purely to see if
there were any insights on what makes it so 'good'.

I would expect someone seriously developing a chess engine, to know about
Rybka and its developer simply because it is a strong and famous engine. I
wouldn't expect a hobbyist to know the developers name "off the top of their
head", but I would expect some sort of "ahh, i know this one... but I can't
remember!" reaction.

Certainly, they would know who didn't write it.

ave




     
Date: 30 May 2008 00:18:45
From: nobody
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
ave wrote:

> I would expect someone seriously developing a chess engine, to know about
> Rybka and its developer simply because it is a strong and famous engine. I
> wouldn't expect a hobbyist to know the developers name "off the top of their
> head", but I would expect some sort of "ahh, i know this one... but I can't
> remember!" reaction.

Good points 'ave',

Sanny is a tiresome trolling, middle-class, miscreant from the
sub-continent, commonly known as India which on a world map is shaped a
bit like a womans pudenda. You only have to git into it a bit to find
out what a nasty little shit he is. Dave is a twat. hth..


     
Date: 29 May 2008 12:43:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
[crosspost trimmed]

ave <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Not really. I'm well aware of Rybka's status but I couldn't tell you
>> who wrote it. I could find out easily but I don't know off the top of
>> my head.
>
> But, are you:
>
> a) Writing your own chess engine.
> b) Continuously comparing your own chess engine against Rybka.

I have written a chess engine in the past. But, given all the things
I could possibly learn about an engine, the name of the author seems
fairly low on the list. It's a little surprising for a current
developer not to know such things but it hardly `boggles the mind', as
you wrote.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven but it wants to
kill you!


      
Date: 29 May 2008 15:58:41
From: ave
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> I have written a chess engine in the past. But, given all the things
> I could possibly learn about an engine, the name of the author seems
> fairly low on the list.

I am not talking about going out and learning the developers name just for
the sake of learning his name. If you read enough articles about something
or by someone, you generally remember their name simply from seeing it so
often and it being associated by something.

> It's a little surprising for a current
> developer not to know such things but it hardly `boggles the mind', as
> you wrote.

It boggles my mind that someone who wants to make "millions" from their
chess engine knows nothing about another engine he continually compares
against. He should know simply from familiarity, let alone from
reading\research. :)

ave




       
Date: 29 May 2008 17:27:52
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
ave <[email protected] > wrote:
> It boggles my mind that someone who wants to make "millions" from their
> chess engine knows nothing about another engine he continually compares
> against. He should know simply from familiarity, let alone from
> reading\research. :)
>

And he is too cheap to buy his own copy of Fritz/Shredder/Rybka/Hiarcs etc and
do his own comparisons and analysis, but instead, posts here at every
opportunity with a question on how to improve and a link to his bullshit
website. The REAL reason he posts here and the ONLY reason he posts here is
to drive traffic.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.


        
Date: 30 May 2008 16:09:51
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What has this group become?



Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>ave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It boggles my mind that someone who wants to make "millions" from their
>> chess engine knows nothing about another engine he continually compares
>> against. He should know simply from familiarity, let alone from
>> reading\research. :)
>>
>
>And he is too cheap to buy his own copy of Fritz/Shredder/Rybka/Hiarcs etc and
>do his own comparisons and analysis, but instead, posts here at every
>opportunity with a question on how to improve and a link to his bullshit
>website. The REAL reason he posts here and the ONLY reason he posts here is
>to drive traffic.

Exactly so. And as long as people respond, this newsgroup will remain
dominated by crap instead of discussion of chess computers and chess-
playing programs.




  
Date: 28 May 2008 13:21:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
> Who is Dr. Hyatt?

Dr. Hyatt is the creator of Crafty.

> What program did he made. Is GetClub Stronger than the Program he
> made.

GitClub is not even close to being as strong as Crafty.

> Since myself and Dr Hyatt worked on Chess we two have lots in common.

In fact the two of you have almost nothing in common. Dr. Hyatt knows
about chess, has created a very strong open-source engine, and is
highly intelligent, gentlemanly, and modest.



   
Date: 28 May 2008 22:51:28
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:21:22 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> Who is Dr. Hyatt?
>
>Dr. Hyatt is the creator of Crafty.
>
>> What program did he made. Is GetClub Stronger than the Program he
>> made.
>
>GitClub is not even close to being as strong as Crafty.
>
>> Since myself and Dr Hyatt worked on Chess we two have lots in common.
>
>In fact the two of you have almost nothing in common. Dr. Hyatt knows
>about chess, has created a very strong open-source engine, and is
>highly intelligent, gentlemanly, and modest.

Whatever happened to Ken Thompson who (helped?) programmed chess
computer belle. Dr. Hyatt has been the one of the greatest pioneers
of computer chess but Thompson has disappeared from the chess
programming.

EZoto


    
Date: 29 May 2008 09:44:26
From: Guest
Subject: Re: What has this group become?
"EZoto" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:21:22 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Who is Dr. Hyatt?
>>
>>Dr. Hyatt is the creator of Crafty.

And don't forget Blitz & CrayBlitz.

He's planning on releasing the source to those, one of these days... As
soon as he gets around to making it compilable & runable on a regular
computer. It's not a high priority for him, though.


>>
>>> What program did he made. Is GetClub Stronger than the Program he
>>> made.
>>
>>GitClub is not even close to being as strong as Crafty.
>>
>>> Since myself and Dr Hyatt worked on Chess we two have lots in common.
>>

>>In fact the two of you have almost nothing in common. Dr. Hyatt knows
>>about chess, has created a very strong open-source engine, and is
>>highly intelligent, gentlemanly, and modest.

Not too many people have spent 40 years (!!!) in computer chess.


> Whatever happened to Ken Thompson who (helped?) programmed chess
> computer belle. Dr. Hyatt has been the one of the greatest pioneers
> of computer chess but Thompson has disappeared from the chess
> programming.

Ken retired from computer chess long ago. I think he's currently running a
flight school.

I emailed with him a 2-3 years ago about his T.Belle program, and he was
still polite about computer chess, but after spending so long doing it, he
no longer has the same level of interest in it.

Most of the other old timers (Slate, Atkin, Sparklens, Marsland, Kittenger,
etc.) have also left.

After 30-40 years, only Hyatt is left. Maybe Kittenger (MyChess), but I'm
not sure.



>
> EZoto