Main
Date: 05 Sep 2006 09:57:24
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
site & chess program by several people.

I have great difficulty in understanding why. From what others have
said, it would appear to be a brain-dead chess program which plays bad
chess very slowly. There are vapor ware prizes, since you do not
actually get any money.

Why not do what I do with software when it is poor - just forget it and
find decent software? There are plenty of decent chess programs around,
so what is the attraction of playing a bad one multiple times? If you
want to play human players why not just use a decent chess server?

If it was an open-source program, I could see the point in reporting
bugs if the developer is sufficiently competent to fix them. But in this
case it's clear the software is closed source with a developer/salesman
who seems to be totally clueless as to how software should be developed.

Please enlighten me to the attraction. I'm obviously missing something.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)




 
Date: 23 Sep 2006 20:30:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!!

Rob wrote:

> Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
> chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.


IMO, Mr. Rob [Banks?] has yet to demonstrate any
intellectual superiority whatever on the part of Zed
over Sanny. In fact, I strongly suspect that of the two,
Sanny is somewhat ster, though perhaps not by a
wide gin. ; >D

----------

Today being a Saturday, I was able to actually finish
a couple of games against Sanny's Beginner level. The
play nearly comes to a halt upon reaching a complex
middlegame/opening position, despite the screen
showing a depth of only three or four plys.
One problem is that the program appears to restart
several times, the displayed depth of search going up,
then dropping back, again and again. But the games
are interesting, which is a vast improvement over where
we stood several months ago.

-- help bot



 
Date: 23 Sep 2006 17:14:36
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!!
http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3

Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.
Sanny wrote:
> > >>> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
> > >>> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
> > >>> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> > >>
> > >> I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
> > >> move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
> > >> move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
> > >>
> > >> Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
> > >> ridiculous!
>
>
> Problem Rectified Now it will not take large time. Only when there is
> very complex situation will it take more than a minute time. Normally
> Beginner Level makes moves in 10-30 seconds.
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> But sure it will plan well to beat you.
>
> I saw your last game with Beginner Level and I am happy to see you were
> beaten by the Beginer Level.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html



 
Date: 23 Sep 2006 04:11:23
From: Sanny
Subject: Why it is slow on your Computer?
> >> I am thinking of writing an article on this problem. What
> >> do you think of the title: "JOHNSON LOSES IN SIX MOVES
> >> AT GETCLUB!"?
> >
> > Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
> >
> >> The problem is, until you give up,
> >
> > How do I do that?
>

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

I saw your recorded game there were 10 wrong move it means your Browser
was confused and sending wrong moves.

I found many moves were played twice. My programmers corrected that
Recorded Game.

Such Problems happen when you load too many internet Connection. Or
start a new game one after another finishes.

Before starting a new game first close all Browsers or restrart the
computer. And you will see significant speed increase. It takes lot of
time only when the position is very complex to Analyze.

Remember always start a new game in new Browser.

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

In such a case go for a coffee break and when you return your Move is
ready. You do not need to sit near computer always. Just hear the sound
and come back to play when Move is made.

It is better to read some Book or Poems at GetClub site while the
Computer ias making it's move.

Bye
Sanny

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

Bye
Sanny



  
Date: 23 Sep 2006 13:11:42
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Why it is slow on your Computer?
On 2006-09-23, Sanny wrote:
>> >> I am thinking of writing an article on this problem. What
>> >> do you think of the title: "JOHNSON LOSES IN SIX MOVES
>> >> AT GETCLUB!"?
>> >
>> > Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
>> >
>> >> The problem is, until you give up,
>> >
>> > How do I do that?
>>
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> I saw your recorded game there were 10 wrong move it means your Browser
> was confused and sending wrong moves.

No, it means your program screwed up.

> I found many moves were played twice. My programmers corrected that
> Recorded Game.

If the program were properly written, that could not happen.

> Such Problems happen when you load too many internet Connection. Or
> start a new game one after another finishes.

Why is your program the only one that has such limitations?

> Before starting a new game first close all Browsers or restrart the
> computer. And you will see significant speed increase. It takes lot of
> time only when the position is very complex to Analyze.
>
> Remember always start a new game in new Browser.

Then your program is seriously broken.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 23 Sep 2006 03:56:41
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!!

> >>> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
> >>> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
> >>> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> >>
> >> I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
> >> move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
> >> move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
> >>
> >> Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
> >> ridiculous!


Problem Rectified Now it will not take large time. Only when there is
very complex situation will it take more than a minute time. Normally
Beginner Level makes moves in 10-30 seconds.

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

But sure it will plan well to beat you.

I saw your last game with Beginner Level and I am happy to see you were
beaten by the Beginer Level.

Bye
Sanny

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



 
Date: 23 Sep 2006 02:01:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-09-23, help bot wrote:
> >
> > Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
> >>
> >> > The problem is, until you give up,
> >>
> >> How do I do that?
> >
> > Oops! I forgot, the "resign" button is only on screen
> > when it is *your* turn to move (which is to say, it is
> > hardly ever there). You, my friend, are now in Limbo.
>
> It finally moved, and I resigned. How will I live it down???


There is an old story about some famous player who
had a very bad result. When asked to explain why he
lost, over and over, he came up with an amusing series
of excuses, a different one for each loss. For the very
final game, his response was: Well, must I be expected
to win EVERY game?

----------

I am still in Limbo, but about once per hour, every other
try, it will make a single move on Beginner level. This means
that in order for me to beat the weakest, fastest level on
GetClub, it could very well take weeks unless something
is changed. The depth of search? A whopping 4 plys! On
its next-to-last move, the program set a trap to exploit my
exposed Queen, which I promptly moved to a safer square.
Hours and hours later, I believe it castled, whereupon I turned
off my computer and went home. As the lady said in Gone
with the Wind: "Tomorrow is another day!"

-- help bot



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 21:16:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:


> Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
>
> > The problem is, until you give up,
>
> How do I do that?


Oops! I forgot, the "resign" button is only on screen
when it is *your* turn to move (which is to say, it is
hardly ever there). You, my friend, are now in Limbo.
Limbo is a place the gods created to punish evildoers
by making them wait forever for a chess program to
make but a single move. But things could be worse;
we could be tied to a cliff, getting our guts eaten, while
still alive, by birds of prey. Or we could be forced to
push a boulder to the top of a hill, only to have it roll
back down, again, and again, forever! We could be
sent someplace very, very hot and dry, and eternally
deprived of ice-water. We could be forced to play
Bobby Fischer, over and over, with the penalty of a
severe electric shock administered each time we hung
a pawn. In view of all this, I think we are not doing so
badly.

-- help bot



  
Date: 23 Sep 2006 00:27:52
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-23, help bot wrote:
>
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
>>
>> > The problem is, until you give up,
>>
>> How do I do that?
>
> Oops! I forgot, the "resign" button is only on screen
> when it is *your* turn to move (which is to say, it is
> hardly ever there). You, my friend, are now in Limbo.

It finally moved, and I resigned. How will I live it down???


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:38:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Nick wrote:

> Taylor Kingston claimed to have a '2300+ Elo' rating,
> without specifying the form of chess involved.


That's because the new "random" chess didn't have
ratings back then. : >D


> In fact, as I recall, Taylor Kingston had a peak
> USCF postal chess rating of 1806, which would
> be converted (as done by someone affliated with
> the USCF rating system) to a mid-2200s USCF
> postal chess rating today.


I don't know anything about the way in which
correspondence ratings have floated about over
time, but as for OTB, I can recall a time when the
USCF had recently instituted a counter to the
problem with ratings *deflation*. At the time, more
than a few players whined that the new ratings were
meaningless, because it was so much easier to go
up than it had been just before the change. In time,
it became apparent that although the *inflation*
brought about by these changes seemed to promote
activity in rated events, the trouble was that this
caused USCF ratings to become dis-aligned with
FIDE ratings (as well as maligned as Mickey Mouse
ratings).

In any event, just because a rating converts to say,
2250 today, that doesn't mean that at some point in
time it did not convert to something else. IMO, Mr.
Kingston did not hesitate to explain here that he had
taken the liberty of adjusting his estimate (i.e. 2300+)
for the forfeit losses he incurred when he suddenly
retired from play. Now a strict mathematician could
never do that; a strict calculating machine would be
forced to fully penalize TK for each and every game
he had failed to complete, resulting in a decimation
of his last, published correspondence rating. So it
is understood that we are talking about TK's PEAK
rating, just before he retired. Since no one ever
lists TK's actual results, game by game, I don't see
how even the nitpickers can pretend a 50 point error
is significant, in lieu of these many forfeits. Perhaps
someone is just pissed off at TK, and this is a handy
tool?

-- help bot



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:18:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-09-17, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
> >>
> >>> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
> >>> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
> >>>
> >>> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
> >>> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
> >>> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
> >> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
> >
> > I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
> > move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
> > move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
> >
> > Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
> > ridiculous!
>
> I abandoned the game after waiting about 45 minutes.
>
> When I went back today to see whether there was any truth to
> Sanny's claim that it is playing faster, it automatically resumed
> that game. It has now been thinking (in this session) for 45
> minutes on move 6.


I am thinking of writing an article on this problem. What
do you think of the title: "JOHNSON LOSES IN SIX MOVES
AT GETCLUB!"?
The problem is, until you give up, I won't have access to
the moves of the game.

How many chess programs do you know which can win
in only six moves? I too, am playing the infamous Beginner
level, in my quest for rating points. (FYI: Beginner level is
higher-rated than the other, stronger levels now.) But unlike
you, I am in the middlegame, about to win a pawn. Sanny's
program has a very cramped position, which I expect will
give it fits, in due time.

-- help bot



-- help bot



  
Date: 22 Sep 2006 23:41:59
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-23, help bot wrote:
>
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2006-09-17, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> > On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>> >>> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>> >>>
>> >>> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
>> >>> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
>> >>> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
>> >> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
>> >
>> > I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
>> > move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
>> > move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
>> >
>> > Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
>> > ridiculous!
>>
>> I abandoned the game after waiting about 45 minutes.
>>
>> When I went back today to see whether there was any truth to
>> Sanny's claim that it is playing faster, it automatically resumed
>> that game. It has now been thinking (in this session) for 45
>> minutes on move 6.
>
>
> I am thinking of writing an article on this problem. What
> do you think of the title: "JOHNSON LOSES IN SIX MOVES
> AT GETCLUB!"?

Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"

> The problem is, until you give up,

How do I do that?

> I won't have access to
> the moves of the game.

Well, the game actually sped up to a reasonable level shortly
afterwards. Still nowhere near the 10-30 seconds Sanni claims, but
a playable 1 to 5 minutes.

Unfortunately, several moves later, it went haywire, and displayed
a position that bore very little resemblance to the game in
progress. I am suddenly a queen and the exchange down. I was down,
having made a couple of blunders, but nowhere near that much.

> How many chess programs do you know which can win
> in only six moves? I too, am playing the infamous Beginner
> level, in my quest for rating points. (FYI: Beginner level is
> higher-rated than the other, stronger levels now.)

When it plays fast, it seems quite good.

> But unlike you, I am in the middlegame, about to win a pawn.
> Sanny's program has a very cramped position, which I expect will
> give it fits, in due time.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


   
Date: 23 Sep 2006 00:25:59
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-23, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I am thinking of writing an article on this problem. What
>> do you think of the title: "JOHNSON LOSES IN SIX MOVES
>> AT GETCLUB!"?
>
> Subtitle: "Resigned due to old age"
>
>> The problem is, until you give up,
>
> How do I do that?

Ah! The resign button appeared after the program moved.

I have started another game, and it's back to its old tricks: it
has already taken 16 minutes on move 6.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:07:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Sanny wrote:
> > Right now, I am in the middle of a game against the
> > lowest level (Beginner), and the computer is taking
> > forever to move. In complex middlegames, even the
> > fastest-moving level can sometimes take an absurd
> > amount of time to calculate its move. Thus, it is
> > hardly possible for me to rip through a half-dozen
> > games in one night, even on the weakest level.
> >
>
> Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.


It may be possible that some players are getting decent
response times, but as for me, I am STILL in the middle
or rather, near the beginning, of a complex game against
the lowest level, where Sanny's computer is frozen in time.
I got as high as 4 ply last night, before finally giving up.
Having restarted an hour ago, I am now looking at 3 ply
in the same position, and waiting.


> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> > Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> > rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> > 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
> >
>
> Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?


TK himself gave that number as the equivalent of his
actual postal rating many years ago. Ad hominists
like Larry Parr seem to have established that the
correct number is just a tad lower, due to some tricky
calculations; but TK had made allowance for his forfeit
losses, while the mathematicians are not so kind.

I was of course joking when I wrote that TK is really
a 1600 player. The only way for a c.2300 to play at
1600 over the board, is if the 2300 rating was earned
using the help of computers (or cheating some other
way). TK earned his wings back before computers
were strong enough to make a real difference.

I was also joking when I chided TK for being three
classes weaker than himself (as Pfuscher).

-- help bot



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:57:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Nick wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> > > Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.
> >
> > We've heard this before.
>
> Many writers in rec.games.chess.* like
> to reiterate their false statements.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

> > > > Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> > > > rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> > > > 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
> > >
> > > Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?
> >
> > That was in postal chess, over 20 years ago.
>
> Taylor Kingston claimed to have a '2300+ Elo' rating,
> without specifying the form of chess involved.

Surely, Nick, you are not admitting that someone of your intelligence
was unable to figure out what form of chess I referred to?



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:49:38
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
> > Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.
>
> We've heard this before.

Many writers in rec.games.chess.* like
to reiterate their false statements.

> > > Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> > > rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> > > 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
> >
> > Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?
>
> That was in postal chess, over 20 years ago.

Taylor Kingston claimed to have a '2300+ Elo' rating,
without specifying the form of chess involved.

In fact, as I recall, Taylor Kingston had a peak
USCF postal chess rating of 1806, which would
be converted (as done by someone affliated with
the USCF rating system) to a mid-2200s USCF
postal chess rating today.

Some writers in rec.games.chess.* have denounced
Taylor Kingston for supposedly lying about his OTB rating.

Some other writers in rec.games.chess.* have apparently
defended Taylor Kingston for supposedly being completely
honest and accurate in describing his converted mid-2200s
USCF postal chess rating as a '2300+ Elo' rating.

"(Taylor) Kingston never had a 2300 Elo rating--neither
in face-to-face nor in correspondence chess. So what?"
--Juergen Ren (24 August 2006)

--Nick

> My current USCF over-the-board rating is 1811.



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 06:28:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Sanny wrote:
> Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.

We've heard this before.

> > Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> > rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> > 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
>
> Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?

That was in postal chess, over 20 years ago. My current USCF
over-the-board rating is 1811.



 
Date: 22 Sep 2006 03:23:43
From: Sanny
Subject: Game Speed increased !!!

> Right now, I am in the middle of a game against the
> lowest level (Beginner), and the computer is taking
> forever to move. In complex middlegames, even the
> fastest-moving level can sometimes take an absurd
> amount of time to calculate its move. Thus, it is
> hardly possible for me to rip through a half-dozen
> games in one night, even on the weakest level.
>

Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.

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

> Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
>

Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:06:21
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!
On 2006-09-22, Sanny wrote:
>
>> Right now, I am in the middle of a game against the
>> lowest level (Beginner), and the computer is taking
>> forever to move. In complex middlegames, even the
>> fastest-moving level can sometimes take an absurd
>> amount of time to calculate its move. Thus, it is
>> hardly possible for me to rip through a half-dozen
>> games in one night, even on the weakest level.
>>
>
> Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.

You are still dreaming. Earlier today I posted this in another
thread:

Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
References: <[email protected] > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Followup-To:

On 2006-09-22, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-09-17, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>>>
>>>> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>>>> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>>>>
>>>> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
>>>> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
>>>> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
>>>
>>> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
>>> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
>>
>> I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
>> move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
>> move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
>>
>> Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
>> ridiculous!
>
> I abandoned the game after waiting about 45 minutes.
>
> When I went back today to see whether there was any truth to
> Sanny's claim that it is playing faster, it automatically resumed
> that game. It has now been thinking (in this session) for 45
> minutes on move 6.

Well, it finally deigned to make a move -- after 2 hours!

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 21 Sep 2006 22:57:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Taylor Kinston.

Rob wrote:

> Taylor has stomped Zed... Zed has stomped Sannybot. Pfuscher barely
> beats Sannybot.


That's not true. Pfuscher actually stomps Sanny's program --
far more easily than TK ever did.


> Taylor is better than Pfuscher


Not by a long shot. In several games, Pfuscher
took White and Sanny's program had grave difficulties
with the Colle System. In most games, Pfuscher
took the Black pieces and Sanny's program could
not handle the tactics which arose in the opening.
The logical conclusion is that the Sicilian points out
the greatest weakness of Sanny's program -- tactics.
Especially tactics which involve the program's King.


> http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3
>
> Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
> chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.


What you take for entertaining "conversation", many
would consider a dull, failed attempt at A.I. Note,
for example, how the same responses are parrotted,
again and again. And how in response to many of
your questions, the Zed-thing ignores the question
and drones out a stock question of its own. If we
want mindless, unintelligent chatter, we can already
get that right here. ; >D

But you're right: Zed is much faster and stronger.

-- help bot



 
Date: 21 Sep 2006 22:07:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.

Sanny wrote:
> > Sanny, I can't bear to take advantage of your credulity any longer.
> > "Bobby Pfuscher" and I are one and the same. Some people (e.g. Nigel
> > Short) have recently claimed they might have played the real Fischer
> > (under a pseudonym) online. I just wanted to see if you would jump at
> > the same bait. You took it hook, line and sinker.
> > If you don't believe me, just log on to your program with
>
>
> So, again Taylor Kingston is on Top of GetClub Chess. I was thinking
> some great player has taken the Challenge to beat you.
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Looking at 4-5 games one can easily understand the rating of a Player.
> And my assumption was correct Bobby Pfusher still is the best player
> and actually Taylor Kingston. Who was earier on Top of GetClub.com
> Chess.
>
> Well Done.


If I am reading this correctly, Sanny is saying he was
right! LOL.

Right now, I am in the middle of a game against the
lowest level (Beginner), and the computer is taking
forever to move. In complex middlegames, even the
fastest-moving level can sometimes take an absurd
amount of time to calculate its move. Thus, it is
hardly possible for me to rip through a half-dozen
games in one night, even on the weakest level.

Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. : >D

-- help bot



 
Date: 21 Sep 2006 13:58:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: View last 20 games and see the Winners.
Taylor has stomped Zed... Zed has stomped Sannybot. Pfuscher barely
beats Sannybot.
Taylor is better than Pfuscher

http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3


Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.


Sanny wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> Do not shout, I too can.
>
> If you look last 20 games here is the list of winners.
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> 1. Nomorechess was beaten by Easy level once.
> 2. Richardby was beaten by Master Thrice
> 3. Pappu was Beaten Once. (by Beginner)
> 4. softtanks was beaten once (by Beginner)
> 5. dwight was beaten once {by Easy}
>
> While "Bobby Pfusher" was able to beat Advance level 5 times that too
> in 20/34/38/ Moves.
>
> If we reject "Bobby Pfusher" Games (15/20) Games were won by Computer.
>
> If we include "Bobby Pfusher Games (10/20) Games were won by Computer.
>
> Taylor Kingston beat 50+ Games (2300+ Rating)
> NomoreChess beat 50+ Games (A Chess Genius)
>
> When you analyse you are analysing Games Played by Strong Players. You
> forget that you will be beaten by the game very easily. You are looking
> at games Computer lost by strong players.
>
>
> If Kasparov beats "Bobby Fisher" 10 times I will not say I am better
> than "Bobby Fisher" Just because I have seen "Bobby Fisher" being
> beaten by a strong player.
>
> If you think the game is weak show me the Game you have won and tell me
> what weak move you found.
>
> I am sure 9/10 will loose the game with GetClub Chess.
>
>
> 5/10 will loose by Beginner Level
>
> 8/10 will loose by Easy Level
>
> 45/50 will loose by Normal Level
>
> 95/100 will loose by Master level {Taylor Kingston, Nomorechess, Bob
> will win}
>
> 99/100 will loose by Advance Level {Bobby Pfusher will win}
>
> The game is very good now. Just see the Games played in last 20.
>
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> If you beat a game and find something wrong let me know it and that
> will be removed.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html



 
Date: 21 Sep 2006 06:29:55
From: Rob
Subject: Why Taylor Kinston.
Taylor has stomped Zed... Zed has stomped Sannybot. Pfuscher barely
beats Sannybot.
Taylor is better than Pfuscher


http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3

Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.

Sanny wrote:
> > Sanny, I can't bear to take advantage of your credulity any longer.
> > "Bobby Pfuscher" and I are one and the same. Some people (e.g. Nigel
> > Short) have recently claimed they might have played the real Fischer
> > (under a pseudonym) online. I just wanted to see if you would jump at
> > the same bait. You took it hook, line and sinker.
> > If you don't believe me, just log on to your program with
>
>
> So, again Taylor Kingston is on Top of GetClub Chess. I was thinking
> some great player has taken the Challenge to beat you.
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Looking at 4-5 games one can easily understand the rating of a Player.
> And my assumption was correct Bobby Pfusher still is the best player
> and actually Taylor Kingston. Who was earier on Top of GetClub.com
> Chess.
>
> Well Done.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html



 
Date: 21 Sep 2006 03:41:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.

> Sanny, I can't bear to take advantage of your credulity any longer.
> "Bobby Pfuscher" and I are one and the same. Some people (e.g. Nigel
> Short) have recently claimed they might have played the real Fischer
> (under a pseudonym) online. I just wanted to see if you would jump at
> the same bait. You took it hook, line and sinker.
> If you don't believe me, just log on to your program with


So, again Taylor Kingston is on Top of GetClub Chess. I was thinking
some great player has taken the Challenge to beat you.

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

Looking at 4-5 games one can easily understand the rating of a Player.
And my assumption was correct Bobby Pfusher still is the best player
and actually Taylor Kingston. Who was earier on Top of GetClub.com
Chess.

Well Done.

Bye
Sanny

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



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 21:46:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:


> PS. I was strongly impressed by Sanny's
> program. So strongly that it made me positive
> -- positive that Sanny indeed does not think.
> Does he??


Sanny claims to have a "team" of programmers, who I
suppose are the ones responsibe for the many problems.
They obviously are not familiar with the rules of chess,
since, for example, the possibility of draws was not even
considered.

At one point in time, I would never have expected the
program to make a leap in terms of depth of search, due
to the fact that Sanny seemed unconvinced there was
anything wrong in the first place. As weak players,
Sanny and his friends lack the critical eye of expert
chess players. But as we can now see, he is eager to
brag about victories, so the quest for speed continues.
I am tired of having almost no chance against modern
programs on Pentium+++ machines, with their near-
limitless opening books, etc. It is a pleasant change to
face an opponent which is not so invincible, yet the
issue of thinking-time remains a problem.

-- help bot



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 21:35:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
> > > Here's the real error: Sanny calls Pfuscher the top
> > > player on GetClub, saying above that he *is* the top
> > > 1%, when in fact Taylor Kingston is top-rated, as
> > > Pfuscher has played far fewer games.
> > >
> > > IMO, since TK has apparently stopped playing at
> > > GetClub, and since the program apparently now
> > > looks much deeper than before, all levels should
> >
> >
> > The reasion "Bobby Pfusher" games are better
> >
> > Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> >
> > 1. "Bobby Pfusher" played 7/10 games with "Advance level" and mostly
> > with black pieces. And he won all the games in 20-30 moves only.
> >
> > 2. Taylor Kingston beat "Master Level" when it was weak & slow. He took
> > 30-40 Moves to beat Master Level when it was having Bugs.
> >
> > After all Bugs removed and Game speed improved I have not seen any
> > winning game from Taylor Kingston against Master Level. While "Bobby
> > Pfusher" is beating "Advance Level" easily.
> >
> > Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> >
> > Now the game speed is 2-3 times faster than what Taylor Kingston used
> > to play earlier. You can see in some old games Taylor kingston waited
> > for 1 hour (Master Level) Now the Master Level makes moves quite fast.
> >
> > That is the reasion "Bobby Pfusher" finished 6-7 games with Advance
> > Level.
>
> Sanny, I can't bear to take advantage of your credulity any longer.
> "Bobby Pfuscher" and I are one and the same. Some people (e.g. Nigel
> Short) have recently claimed they might have played the real Fischer
> (under a pseudonym) online. I just wanted to see if you would jump at
> the same bait. You took it hook, line and sinker.
> If you don't believe me, just log on to your program with
> "[email protected]" and "wordpass" and see who it says you are.


Yeah, right. You took fifty moves to win back when
the program was slow and weak, but now that it has
improved dramatically, you win (as Black) much quicker?
And your games are much better now? No, it can only
mean one thing: the real Bobby Fischer is back, and he
alone can tackle the new, *improved* program in under
forty moves! He alone can face the Advance level, as
Black, and yet still overpower Sanny's program at fifteen
ply search depth! The sad truth is that Taylor Kingston is
a mediocre player, but Fischer OTOH, is a chess genius
of the first order! Look how he snaps up all the pieces
hung by Sanny's program (yes, ALL of them!), without
missing a beat. At how he mops up in grandmasterly
fashion (quite unlike an "A" Player such as TK). At
how he courageously takes the Black pieces, against
the toughest level! Pfuscher (i.e. the real Bobby Fischer)
is fearless, a champion! I know it's a hard pill to swallow,
but Pfuscher is simply three classes better than you, TK.
He's invincible. Don't let the 1100 rating fool you.

-- help bot



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 20:02:56
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
help bot wrote:

> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>
> > Sanny wrote:
> >
> > > I do not think
> >
> > True.
>
>
> Meanie!

Me? A, nie!

("A", like "e tam!", in Polish may mean,
depending on context and the voice, the
doubt or sceptic negation; and "nie" means "no")

Wlod

PS. I was strongly impressed by Sanny's
program. So strongly that it made me positive
-- positive that Sanny indeed does not think.
Does he??



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 10:50:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

Rob wrote:

> About time for a Zed vs Sannybot rematch.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3

The last time I pitted Zed vs. Sannybot, something interrupted the
game after a few moves. Trying to resume it, I could not get Zed to
make the same moves as it did before, so I was not able to get back to
the position Sanny's program had stored. Now I can't even remember the
name and password I used for Zed.
The few Z-Sb games I tried really weren't much of a contest. Zed
kicked ass. If you really want to pit them again, Rob, just make up a
new email/pasword combination for Zed. However, I advise patience if
you plan to use the "higher" levels. Sannybot sometimes takes hours for
a single move.



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 10:05:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Wilma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular
> > > interest myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it
> > > discouraged. Who knows that it is not the beginning of something the
> > > chess world will someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers
> > > didn't start by building the space shuttle.
> >
> > They didn't, you're right. However, if Sanny were a Wright Brother,
> > he'd be claiming that his plane could carry five thousand people
> > across the Atlantic in ten minutes and deaf to all suggestions that,
> > actually, it could only just get off the ground.
>
> And if/when it does get off the ground, it crashes and burns. Check
> out the latest fiasco by the "Advance" level (playing White):
>
> 1.e4 c5
> 2.c3 g6
> 3.d4 cxd4
> 4.cxd4 d5
> 5.Nc3 dxe4
> 6.Bb5+ Bd7
> 7.Bc4 Bg7
> 8.Nxe4 Nf6
> 9.Nc5 Bc6
>
> After handling the opening rather badly, Sannybot now blunders
> egregiously:
>
> 10.Bg5??
>
> How could it possibly overlook the threat to g2?
>
> 10...Bxg2
> 11.Bb5+ Nc6
> 12.Nxb7 Qd5
> 13.Bxf6 Bxf6
> 14.Bxc6+ Qxc6
> 15.Rc1??
>
> From terrible to worse.
>
> 15...Qxb7
> 16.Qa4+ Qd7
> 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7
>
> Having already lost a piece, and about to lose a rook, it helps the
> opponent by chopping wood.
>
> 18.Ne2 Bxh1 and wins

About time for a Zed vs Sannybot rematch.

http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 07:55:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.

Sanny wrote:
> > Here's the real error: Sanny calls Pfuscher the top
> > player on GetClub, saying above that he *is* the top
> > 1%, when in fact Taylor Kingston is top-rated, as
> > Pfuscher has played far fewer games.
> >
> > IMO, since TK has apparently stopped playing at
> > GetClub, and since the program apparently now
> > looks much deeper than before, all levels should
>
>
> The reasion "Bobby Pfusher" games are better
>
> Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> 1. "Bobby Pfusher" played 7/10 games with "Advance level" and mostly
> with black pieces. And he won all the games in 20-30 moves only.
>
> 2. Taylor Kingston beat "Master Level" when it was weak & slow. He took
> 30-40 Moves to beat Master Level when it was having Bugs.
>
> After all Bugs removed and Game speed improved I have not seen any
> winning game from Taylor Kingston against Master Level. While "Bobby
> Pfusher" is beating "Advance Level" easily.
>
> Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Now the game speed is 2-3 times faster than what Taylor Kingston used
> to play earlier. You can see in some old games Taylor kingston waited
> for 1 hour (Master Level) Now the Master Level makes moves quite fast.
>
> That is the reasion "Bobby Pfusher" finished 6-7 games with Advance
> Level.

Sanny, I can't bear to take advantage of your credulity any longer.
"Bobby Pfuscher" and I are one and the same. Some people (e.g. Nigel
Short) have recently claimed they might have played the real Fischer
(under a pseudonym) online. I just wanted to see if you would jump at
the same bait. You took it hook, line and sinker.
If you don't believe me, just log on to your program with
"[email protected]" and "wordpass" and see who it says you are.



 
Date: 20 Sep 2006 00:55:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.


> PS: I obeyed your orders not to play the tougher levels,
> and I am currently up two pawns, having pulled the wool
> over your programs tactical eyes.

I won that game easily, and the next one.

I expect Sanny will proclaim that Pfuscher winning in
less than 35 moves equals him being a stronger player
than TK or me. But that is not how it works. The
position on the board should dictate the moves, not
any emotional desire to "brilliantly" win in such fashion
as to impress by fewer moves or flashy combination.

I recall a team tournament, long, long ago, where our
top player faced off against a 2350. As White the 2350
played 1.b3, and proceeded to grind down our man, oh so
slowly. Meanwhile, on the bottom board (board 4) our
man hung a piece right in the opening, for no reason!
By Sanny;s logic, the 1900 player was better than the
2300, on account of winning "in fewer moves". By this
same logic, our man on board 1 was much stronger
than our board 4, because he "lasted much longer".
Morphy may have been the strongest chess player
ever, since he often won very quickly -- even as Black.

IMO, the level I just played (was it Easy level?) is not
so bad. It has been giving me a decent game, unlike
before. The losses are occurring largely as a result of
positional errors, such as blocking a key pawn, which
leads to a cramped position which can be difficult to
defend. The positional errors are obviously occurring
right after the program is taken out of book, while
still in the opening phase. Apparently, a few of my
moves are not "sharp" enough to stay in the book, so
we are both on our own, and the inferior player is thus
taking a beating. ; >D

-- help bot



 
Date: 19 Sep 2006 22:52:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > I do not think
>
> True.


Meanie!

-- help bot



 
Date: 19 Sep 2006 22:21:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.

Sanny wrote:
> > Here's the real error: Sanny calls Pfuscher the top
> > player on GetClub, saying above that he *is* the top
> > 1%, when in fact Taylor Kingston is top-rated, as
> > Pfuscher has played far fewer games.
> >
> > IMO, since TK has apparently stopped playing at
> > GetClub, and since the program apparently now
> > looks much deeper than before, all levels should
>
>
> The reasion "Bobby Pfusher" games are better
>
> Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> 1. "Bobby Pfusher" played 7/10 games with "Advance level" and mostly
> with black pieces. And he won all the games in 20-30 moves only.
>
> 2. Taylor Kingston beat "Master Level" when it was weak & slow. He took
> 30-40 Moves to beat Master Level when it was having Bugs.
>
> After all Bugs removed and Game speed improved I have not seen any
> winning game from Taylor Kingston against Master Level. While "Bobby
> Pfusher" is beating "Advance Level" easily.


Okay, but if you are aware that your program is now
seeing far deeper than before, then you should also be
aware that the ratings make no sense, for the "1000"
level X that early players faced is weaker than the same
level now, which may well be lower-rated than before.

Trying to take this objectively, all other things being
equal (which they are not), a level which sees 5 plys
ahead ought to ALWAYS be higher-rated than your
same program at 4 plys, yet the way you have it, it
depends upon the latest resuts.

Generally, if the ratings are supposed to mean anything,
the player who has the highest rating (here, Taylor Kingston)
is theoretically the strongest player, or at least the player
with the best recent/overall results. It's not working at
GetClub, because your program keeps shifting ground --
much like an Evans ratpacker. ; >D

-- help bot


PS: I obeyed your orders not to play the tougher levels,
and I am currently up two pawns, having pulled the wool
over your programs tactical eyes.



  
Date: 20 Sep 2006 11:57:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Okay, but if you are aware that your program is now seeing far
> deeper than before, then you should also be aware that the ratings
> make no sense, for the "1000" level X that early players faced is
> weaker than the same level now, which may well be lower-rated than
> before.

You clearly don't understand ratings. Ratings are, if you'll pardon
my saying it yet again, a measure of performance, not strength. As
the program gets stronger, its performance will improve and its rating
will increase. Over time, the rating will come to be a reasonable
indication of strength compared to the other active players.


Dave.



--
David Richerby Radioactive Nuclear Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a brick of cheese that's made
of atoms but it'll make you glow in
the dark!


 
Date: 19 Sep 2006 07:21:27
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Sanny wrote:

> I do not think

True.

*********
Wlod



 
Date: 19 Sep 2006 02:06:03
From: Sanny
Subject: Why "Bobby Pfuscher" better than Taylor Kinston.
> Here's the real error: Sanny calls Pfuscher the top
> player on GetClub, saying above that he *is* the top
> 1%, when in fact Taylor Kingston is top-rated, as
> Pfuscher has played far fewer games.
>
> IMO, since TK has apparently stopped playing at
> GetClub, and since the program apparently now
> looks much deeper than before, all levels should


The reasion "Bobby Pfusher" games are better

Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

1. "Bobby Pfusher" played 7/10 games with "Advance level" and mostly
with black pieces. And he won all the games in 20-30 moves only.

2. Taylor Kingston beat "Master Level" when it was weak & slow. He took
30-40 Moves to beat Master Level when it was having Bugs.

After all Bugs removed and Game speed improved I have not seen any
winning game from Taylor Kingston against Master Level. While "Bobby
Pfusher" is beating "Advance Level" easily.

Games Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Now the game speed is 2-3 times faster than what Taylor Kingston used
to play earlier. You can see in some old games Taylor kingston waited
for 1 hour (Master Level) Now the Master Level makes moves quite fast.

That is the reasion "Bobby Pfusher" finished 6-7 games with Advance
Level.

Bye
Sanny

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



 
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:49:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
> >
> > Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
> > Normal Level.
> >
> > Master Level is only for Taylor Kingston and Bob
> > Advance Level is only for Bobby Pfusher
>
> Master and advance level are only for people with oodles of time on
> their hands.
>
> > So Other Players you have Three choices to play.
> >
> > 1. Beginner Lever for 80% of Players
> > 2. Easy Level for Top 10% Players
> > 3. Normal Level for Top 5 % Players (NomoreChess/ Bonsai/ Richardby/
> > likes forest)
> > 4. Master Level for Top 2% Players (Taylor Kingston and Bob)
> > 5. Advance Level for Top 1% Players (Bobby Pfusher)
>
> Does that explain the program's performance: "Three choices to
> play" and a list of five items?


Sanny was simply advising me not to try and play
the two highest levels, since I mucked up my last
game and only drew.

Here's the real error: Sanny calls Pfuscher the top
player on GetClub, saying above that he *is* the top
1%, when in fact Taylor Kingston is top-rated, as
Pfuscher has played far fewer games.

IMO, since TK has apparently stopped playing at
GetClub, and since the program apparently now
looks much deeper than before, all levels should
show an increase in ratings over time, by repeatedly
thrashing the weaker players -- each of whom I
imagine begin at 1000, or close to it. That is, unless
the players using computers increase their activity.

-- help bot



 
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:55:40
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

It's an rgcm-ish thing.

If you like, I can say more.

Regards,

Wlod

PS. I didn't bother muchj because:

1. the program was soooo slow;

2. as the result of "fixing bugs" its strength
went down from about USCF 1200-1300
to about 900, perhaps less.

3. the Sanny's user interface is a mixture
of good features (10%) and of jokes (90%).
Too many jokes made it not too funny.

Otherwise I would enthusiastically bother
more with Sanny's program too.

(wh)



 
Date: 18 Sep 2006 12:57:32
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

David Richerby wrote:
> Wilma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular
> > interest myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it
> > discouraged. Who knows that it is not the beginning of something the
> > chess world will someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers
> > didn't start by building the space shuttle.
>
> They didn't, you're right. However, if Sanny were a Wright Brother,
> he'd be claiming that his plane could carry five thousand people
> across the Atlantic in ten minutes and deaf to all suggestions that,
> actually, it could only just get off the ground.

And if/when it does get off the ground, it crashes and burns. Check
out the latest fiasco by the "Advance" level (playing White):

1.e4 c5
2.c3 g6
3.d4 cxd4
4.cxd4 d5
5.Nc3 dxe4
6.Bb5+ Bd7
7.Bc4 Bg7
8.Nxe4 Nf6
9.Nc5 Bc6

After handling the opening rather badly, Sannybot now blunders
egregiously:

10.Bg5??

How could it possibly overlook the threat to g2?

10...Bxg2
11.Bb5+ Nc6
12.Nxb7 Qd5
13.Bxf6 Bxf6
14.Bxc6+ Qxc6
15.Rc1??

From terrible to worse.

15...Qxb7
16.Qa4+ Qd7
17.Qxd7+ Kxd7

Having already lost a piece, and about to lose a rook, it helps the
opponent by chopping wood.

18.Ne2 Bxh1 and wins



  
Date: 19 Sep 2006 11:41:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> And if/when it does get off the ground, it crashes and burns. Check
> out the latest fiasco by the "Advance" level (playing White):
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.c3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bc4 Bg7
> 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nc5 Bc6 10.Bg5??
>
> How could it possibly overlook the threat to g2?

Possibly a horizon effect?


> 10... Bxg2 11.Bb5+ Nc6 12.Nxb7 Qd5 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Bxc6+ Qxc6
> 15.Rc1?? Qxb7 16.Qa4+ Qd7 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7 18.Ne2 Bxh1 and wins

Admit it. You're Bobby Fischer, too. Hands up anyone who's ever seen
Kingston and Fischer in the same room.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Chair (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ chair but it'll turn your stomach!


 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 10:26:21
From: Sanny
Subject: For faster Chess game get JVM
If you are looking for fast game download JVM

You should have latest JVM then the Game will play fast.

Download JVM from http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html

Here download J2SE v 1.4.2_12 SDK

It is 50 MB file. Once you install it the game speed will improve
dramatically.

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 13:50:44
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: For faster Chess game get JVM
On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
> If you are looking for fast game download JVM
>
> You should have latest JVM then the Game will play fast.
>
> Download JVM from http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html
>
> Here download J2SE v 1.4.2_12 SDK
>
> It is 50 MB file. Once you install it the game speed will improve
> dramatically.

If you think that a different version of the JVM is going to make a
60-fold improvement (to get the speed you claim), you are dreaming.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:24:09
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>
> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
>

You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
in some moves it takes more than a minute.

See a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 11:58:10
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>
>> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>>
>> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
>> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
>> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
>>
>
> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
> in some moves it takes more than a minute.

I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!

Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
ridiculous!

I don't know where you are getting the idea that it moves in 10 to
30 seconds. It has only done that once for me; and in that game it
played better than it has done before or since. 10 to 30 _minutes_
per move is more accurate.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


   
Date: 22 Sep 2006 10:44:54
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-17, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>>
>>> > When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>>> > then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>>>
>>> The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
>>> ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
>>> speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?
>>>
>>
>> You are correct Beginner Level Takes only 10-30 seconds per move. Only
>> in some moves it takes more than a minute.
>
> I'm playing against beginner level now. It took over 2 minutes for
> move 3; 1 minute for move 4; it has already taken 5 minutes for
> move 5 ... 6 minutes ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 14 minutes!
>
> Move 6 ... more than 30 minutes, and I'm still waiting. This is
> ridiculous!

I abandoned the game after waiting about 45 minutes.

When I went back today to see whether there was any truth to
Sanny's claim that it is playing faster, it automatically resumed
that game. It has now been thinking (in this session) for 45
minutes on move 6.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:21:56
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
> When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
> then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>

No, Beginner Level takes 10-30 seconds per move on an average. Only in
some cases it goes beyond 1 minute.

See a Game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Haven't you seen the recorded games where Beginner Level won opponents
and making moves quite fast.

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:53:26
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
Sanny wrote:
>>When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>>then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>>
>
>
> No, Beginner Level takes 10-30 seconds per move on an average. Only in
> some cases it goes beyond 1 minute.

Not sure on which planet you live or whether you've played your own
program recently.

A couple of moves per game take 10-30 minutes.

No wonder that nobody plays against it (and thus only a few people win).


 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 00:46:54
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub ratings

> playing strength. One good thing: if ever my current
> "drawn" game is cancelled by Sanny and I am able to
> play again, the computer may well have gained a few
> rating points by then, so I will no longer be losing/
> drawing/beating a 900-rated opponent, gaining almost
> nothing for a hard-earned victory. Hard-earned in the
> sense that it took one helluva lot of time to finish the
> game, that is.
>

Your Game was Cancelled, So it will neither effect your Rating. You can
play a new game.

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

Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
Normal Level.

Master Level is only for Taylor Kingston and Bob
Advance Level is only for Bobby Pfusher

So Other Players you have Three choices to play.

1. Beginner Lever for 80% of Players
2. Easy Level for Top 10% Players
3. Normal Level for Top 5 % Players (NomoreChess/ Bonsai/ Richardby/
likes forest)
4. Master Level for Top 2% Players (Taylor Kingston and Bob)
5. Advance Level for Top 1% Players (Bobby Pfusher)

Start a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Bye
Sanny

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



 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 00:44:19
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
> Several flaws remain, including the fact that there is no way
> to claim a draw -- according to the rules -- except indirectly,
> by "negotiating" with Sanny after the fact. For me to continue
> playing, I would have to click the "resign" button so that game
> could be put to an end. Going by his record, if I did that Sanny
> would almost immediately appear here to brag about how his
> program had beaten me again. :>D
>


Your Game was Cancelled, So it will neither effect your Rating. You can
play a new game.

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

Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
Normal Level.

Master Level is only for Taylor Kingston and Bob
Advance Level is only for Bobby Pfusher

So Other Players you have Three choices to play.

1. Beginner Lever for 80% of Players
2. Easy Level for Top 10% Players
3. Normal Level for Top 5 % Players (NomoreChess/ Bonsai/ Richardby/
likes forest)
4. Master Level for Top 2% Players (Taylor Kingston and Bob)
5. Advance Level for Top 1% Players (Bobby Pfusher)

Start a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:17:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

NICK's PRIVATE WAR

Unlike Mr. Nick, I have read most of the commentary regarding
Mr. Kingston's claim to 2300+ strength, and most of the comments
mentioned repeatedly by Nick which were made by the Evans
ratpackers, led by Larry Parr.
It is my considered opinion that Mr. Nick is flat-out wrong on
this issue. Here is the real deal:

Larry Parr (and his loyal ratpack) attempted to defend Ray
Keene by smearing Mr. Kingston, by way of suggesting that
he lied about his rating, distorting the reality by many hundreds
of points in a deliberate attempt to deceive readers into thinking
that he was really good at chess, when he wasn't.

In truth, Mr. Kingston's statement in support of him *not*
being a weak player, merely missed the k (as Nick himself
has it) by less than fifty points, going by the official numbers.
Thus, it is quite *irrelevant* whether his old postal rating converts
to 2262 or to 2300+, the effect is precisely the same: he is no
weak player, and claims to the contrary by idiots like Larry
Parr are the real attempts at deceit here.

Fortunately, not everyone is so easily misled as Nick and
the lower Evans ratpackers. Not everyone has been so
corrupted by the lies of Mr. Parr as to even suspect that the
mention of a correspondence rating is in any way less than or
inferior to the mention of an OTB rating, in terms of refuting lies
by the Evans ratpackers. IMO, Larry Parr is a very sick man;
his perpetual dishonesty demonstrates the depths to which
corruption can reach a man's soul. The current "holding
pattern" over the depths of despair cannot last forever; sooner
or later, the plane must come crashing down; reality is
inescapeable.

-- help bot



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:56:27
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>
> Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
> Normal Level.
>
> Master Level is only for Taylor Kingston and Bob
> Advance Level is only for Bobby Pfusher

Master and advance level are only for people with oodles of time on
their hands.

> So Other Players you have Three choices to play.
>
> 1. Beginner Lever for 80% of Players
> 2. Easy Level for Top 10% Players
> 3. Normal Level for Top 5 % Players (NomoreChess/ Bonsai/ Richardby/
> likes forest)
> 4. Master Level for Top 2% Players (Taylor Kingston and Bob)
> 5. Advance Level for Top 1% Players (Bobby Pfusher)

Does that explain the program's performance: "Three choices to
play" and a list of five items?


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 13:04:59
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
Sanny wrote:
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
> Normal Level.
>

When even the beginner level takes >10min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.

Just a question has anyone ever bought any of that business software you
seem to be making???


   
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:58:37
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
On 2006-09-17, Bjoern wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>>
>> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>>
>> Do not play with Master Level unless you can easily beat the Easy and
>> Normal Level.
>
> When even the beginner level takes >10min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
> then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.

The last time I played a game at beginner level (a couple of months
ago?) it not only played at, or very close to, the advertised
speed, but it played better than it had before. Has it regressed?

> Just a question has anyone ever bought any of that business software you
> seem to be making???

One would hope not! If Sanny were st, he'd move that as far away
from the chess program as possible.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)


 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 14:06:28
From: help bot
Subject: GetClub ratings

Sanny wrote:

> > Beginner: 500
> > Easy: 800
> > Average: 1100
> > Master: 1400
> > Advance: 1600
> >
> > Just an example. I know that in the interim, there have
> > been numerous modifications and the program has gotten
> > stronger, and weaker, and back and forth again and again.
> >
>
> I do not think Beginner Level has 500 Rating. I feel the correct Rating
> is as below.
>
> Beginner: 1400
> Easy: 1500
> Average: 1600
> Master: 1700
> Advance: 1800


Okay, I just checked to see if my "drawn" game is still in
progress, and I noticed this:

In my last *listed* game against Normal level (shown
above as "Average" level), Sanny's program missed an

http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM3433&game=Chess

obvious two-move combination. Now how is a program
which cannot see even two moves ahead going to rate
at 1600? Maybe it can. Maybe a player which hangs
pieces to the simplest of "traps" can still manage to
perform 1600 (or higher) overall, by not doing it all the
time, for example. Or by focusing on offense, as
opposed to defense, or whatever. Maybe when a
human opponent moves a piece en prise the program
ALWAYS sees it, and this is enough to do the trick.
But I doubt it. In any case, this is where low numbers
like my "1100" above are coming from. It is in
recognition of such flaws as this piece-hang, not on
Beginner level, but Normal level, that my ratings
estimates began at 500 and worked their way up to
only 1600. In fact, the program in that game made
a whole series of piece-hanging blunders, but then
there have been games where it never dropped any
material whatever, and seemed to be playing at a
fairly high level.

I recognise that under the circumstances -- such as
being unable to complete more than a few games per
week, and sometimes none at all -- my estimates are
not going to be very accurate. Also, the program
seems to continually bounce around wildly as to its
playing strength. One good thing: if ever my current
"drawn" game is cancelled by Sanny and I am able to
play again, the computer may well have gained a few
rating points by then, so I will no longer be losing/
drawing/beating a 900-rated opponent, gaining almost
nothing for a hard-earned victory. Hard-earned in the
sense that it took one helluva lot of time to finish the
game, that is.

-- help bot



 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 12:44:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

Sanny wrote:
> > Beginner: 500
> > Easy: 800
> > Average: 1100
> > Master: 1400
> > Advance: 1600
> >
> > Just an example. I know that in the interim, there have
> > been numerous modifications and the program has gotten
> > stronger, and weaker, and back and forth again and again.
> >
>
> I do not think Beginner Level has 500 Rating. I feel the correct Rating
> is as below.
>
> Beginner: 1400
> Easy: 1500
> Average: 1600
> Master: 1700
> Advance: 1800


Maybe so, maybe not. These numbers look too compressed;
should there not be a *significant* difference between levels?
IMO, the difference between say, 1400 and 1500 is not much.



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


I would if I could!


> When I look at Last 10 Games
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> I find only Richardby has won the Game once
> And Bobby Pfusher has won Thrice


Richerby is the guy who was beating Sanny's computer
easily, then went on a piece/pawn-hanging spree, whereupon
Sanny showed up here to brag how his program had just
slaughtered Richerby when in fact the game was a sloppy
one (not to mention it was just one game).


> Rest all Games were won by Computer.


IMO, Sanny's program is playing much tougher than before,
and this is reflected in the greater depth of search, as displayed
on screen during play. It is hardly surprising that, since Taylor
Kingston "ran in terror when he saw the latest improvements"
and since I can no longer beat up on the program unless and
until Sanny grants my claim of a draw by repetition, his program
is now losing only to Pfuscher -- likely another chess program,
and of course Bob, ditto.
Yeah, TK claimed his "goal" was to win fifty in a row, but this
"goal" was never stated until he was already nearly at the finish
line. This is akin to me stating that my "goal" was never to top
TK's GetClub rating or to establish an unbeaten record, but
simply to keep TK from winning all the prize money. : >D


> Now Everyone is respecting my game play. And I am enjoying to see my
> Chess Program beating each one of you. Ha Ha Ha.


Sanny, your program hasn't beaten me in weeks! In fact,
our latest encounter has your program up a Rook, yet still
quite helpless to avoid a draw via perpetual check. : >D


Several flaws remain, including the fact that there is no way
to claim a draw -- according to the rules -- except indirectly,
by "negotiating" with Sanny after the fact. For me to continue
playing, I would have to click the "resign" button so that game
could be put to an end. Going by his record, if I did that Sanny
would almost immediately appear here to brag about how his
program had beaten me again. : >D

-- help bot



 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 11:08:07
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

[email protected] wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > Now Everyone is respecting my game play. And I am enjoying to see my
> > Chess Program beating each one of you. Ha Ha Ha.
>
> I checked your logs. Very few people are playing, huh?
>
> 9/09-9/15: 0 games played
> 9/02-9/08: 7 games played
> 8/26-9/01: 41 games played

I would say that very few are playing because the program is barely
playing, perhaps not even playing at all. The last several times I've
tried to restart an unfinished game, it just sat there, doing nothing
for hours. It would seem to analyzing for a while, as the piece or ply
depth shown in the "thinking on" box would change now and then, but
then it would just become stuck, "thinking on" the same thing ad
infinitum, perhaps caught in a programming loop.



 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 00:05:56
From:
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
Sanny wrote:

> Now Everyone is respecting my game play. And I am enjoying to see my
> Chess Program beating each one of you. Ha Ha Ha.

I checked your logs. Very few people are playing, huh?

9/09-9/15: 0 games played
9/02-9/08: 7 games played
8/26-9/01: 41 games played

---
Become a Chess Expert
http://likesforests.blogspot.com/



 
Date: 15 Sep 2006 23:30:22
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.

> Beginner: 500
> Easy: 800
> Average: 1100
> Master: 1400
> Advance: 1600
>
> Just an example. I know that in the interim, there have
> been numerous modifications and the program has gotten
> stronger, and weaker, and back and forth again and again.
>

I do not think Beginner Level has 500 Rating. I feel the correct Rating
is as below.

Beginner: 1400
Easy: 1500
Average: 1600
Master: 1700
Advance: 1800

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

When I look at Last 10 Games
http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10

I find only Richardby has won the Game once
And Bobby Pfusher has won Thrice

Rest all Games were won by Computer.

Now Everyone is respecting my game play. And I am enjoying to see my
Chess Program beating each one of you. Ha Ha Ha.

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 24 Sep 2006 17:03:52
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Nick wrote:
> I have better things to do with my time than
> to revisit this issue with Taylor Kingston.

Probably the only reasonable statement in your whole post, Nick.



  
Date: 24 Sep 2006 16:50:19
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!
Taylor Kingston wrote:

As usual, much of the context was snipped by Taylor Kingston.

> Nick wrote:
> > Of course, Taylor Kingston has snipped the part where
> > I pointed out *again* that his peak USCF postal chess
> > rating of 1806 (which converts to the mid-2200s today)
> > cannot quite support his claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating.
>
> Nick, I am surprised to find you so uninformed.

Another of Taylor Kingston's presumptions
about me is wrong.

> This was all discussed at length here months ago.
> My claim of 2300+ was based on the assumption that
> USCF simply added 500 points to the old rating.

I recalled that. Taylor Kingston's assumption was wrong.
Taylor Kingston is responsible for his wrong assumption.

> Soon after I learned that this assumption was not correct at the higher
> levels, and that my 1806 postal rating of 1985 would have converted to
> about 2260-2270 in the new system.

If I recall correctly, someone (who seemed to be an authority on
USCF ratings conversions) wrote that 1806 converts to 2262.

> For example, you can find me acknowledging this in a post
> from back in January:

As I have written before, I usually do *not* read RGCP,
though I happen to read some RGCP threads that get
cross-posted to RGCM.

> "Therefore I was 1806 (in the old system, converting to about
> 2260-2270 Elo) from December 1984 into early 1985." --
> 3 January 2006

If I recall correctly, the disputes about Taylor Kingston's
'2300+ Elo' rating claim began long before January 2006.

> > But Taylor Kingston has been arrogant and dishonest
> > in attempting to defend his '2300+ Elo' rating claim
> > as having been completely honest and accurate.
>
> Perhaps our normally courteous and knowledgeable Nick

Would not Taylor Kingston prefer to stay on good terms
with Greg Kennedy (aka 'helpbot')?

> will wish to revise that rather rude and inaccurate
> statement in light of the facts.

I already knew the 'facts' that Taylor Kingston has just written.
I also recall some evidence of Taylor Kingston's disingenuous
statements about his '2300+ Elo' rating claim that he prefers
not to mention.

In contrast to Larry Parr, I have no instrinsic bias against
Taylor Kingston with regard to his '2300+ Elo' rating claim.
My interest has been in the factual accuracy of that claim
and in the honesty of statements made about that claim.

In contrast to Larry Parr, I was ready to accept that
Taylor Kingston simply had made an 'honest mistake'
in making his original '2300+ Elo' claim.

I would have thought better of Taylor Kingston
*if* he had promptly made a statement, without
making any excuses, like this:

"I, Taylor Kingston, have written that I had a '2300+ Elo'
rating. My claim was based on my assumption that
my old peak 1806 USCF correspondence rating would
convert to a 2300+ USCF correspondence rating now.
I have found out that my assumption was wrong.
My peak 1806 USCF correspondence rating
actually converts to a 2262 (or so) rating now.

I am responsible for making my wrong assumption.
I regret that I have exaggerated my rating, and I
regret misleading any readers by my earlier claim.
I hope that all readers will accept that I did not
intend to mislead them."

*If* Taylor Kingston had written something like
that (above), then I would have accepted his
statement (of apology/retraction, if you like).
I then would have concluded that it's entirely
wrong for Larry Parr or anyone else to keep
attacking Taylor Kingston about his '2300+
Elo' rating claim. In my view, Taylor Kingston
would have acknowledged his error sufficiently.
All this (above) is *hypothetical*.

*But* I cannot recall reading any statement like
that by Taylor Kingston. As far as I could tell,
Taylor Kingston preferred (at least for quite a
while) *not* to admit that he had made any error.
If I recall correctly, Taylor Kingston made some
comments that seemed to me like his attempts
to shift the blame away from his responsibility
for his own wrong assumption. Also, Taylor
Kingston's evident position of 'It should have
been obvious to anyone who checked (the
USCF website) that his 2300+ rating claim
was completely supported by his published
USCF postal rating' is absurdly disingenuous.

I believe that Larry Parr was wrong to assert
that Taylor Kingston lied about his OTB rating
(given that Taylor Kingston's original claim did
not mention it was for an OTB rating). But
Taylor Kingston has shown arrogance and/or
dishonesty in many, though not necessarily
all, of his comments about his rating claim.
(By the way, if someone eventually admits
that one has made an error, then that does
not necessarily excuse one's earlier record
of making dishonest distortions about it.)

I have better things to do with my time than
to revisit this issue with Taylor Kingston.
I find the Kramnik-Topalov match far more
interesting than the countless dishonest
comments in rec.games.chess.*

--Nick



  
Date: 24 Sep 2006 03:59:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!!

Rob wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> >
> > > Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
> > > chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.
> >
> > IMO, Mr. Rob [Banks?] has yet to demonstrate any
> > intellectual superiority whatever on the part of Zed
> > over Sanny. In fact, I strongly suspect that of the two,
> > Sanny is somewhat ster, though perhaps not by a
> > wide gin. ;>D
>
> When was the last time Sannybot spoke about Taylor, or Phil or Brennen
> or Sam Sloan?


Sanny's program only "speaks" in the hackneyed comments
displayed on one side of the screen. For example, after making
a Rook move, the program might display the following comments:

I played Rook.
My healthy Rook.
I am winning -- ha, ha!
Are you a man?
I hate man.
I will try harder, okay.

These comments don't make much sense, yet they are not
so much worse than many of the comments I have seen by
Zed. However, no one can contest the claim that Zed always
beats Sanny's program -- there is no comparison in terms of
strength.

-- help bot



  
Date: 23 Sep 2006 16:31:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> > But Taylor Kingston has been arrogant and dishonest
> > in attempting to defend his '2300+ Elo' rating claim
> > as having been completely honest and accurate.


This Nick fella not only gets his facts wrong (it is the
Evans ratpackers who "keep reiterating" the 2300+
number, for example), but he also lashes out at TK
for being a "White American", which I can only assume
is a double-whammy insult, one count for being the
wrong color, and another for having been born in the
wrong country. Correct me if I am wrong, but are not
both of these beyond any person's own control?


> Perhaps our normally courteous and knowledgeable Nick will wish to
> revise that rather rude and inaccurate statement in light of the facts.


"Normally", Mr. Nick is not only *not* courteous, he quite
frequently attacks people on account of their perceived
race. I find this racist attitude to be anything but courteous.
No one can help what color they are (except maybe Michael
Jackson); we are *born* that way. The same goes for the
location of our own birth. Duh!

IMO, Nick's problem is that he always wants to interpret
things in such a way as to confirm his worst fears: that
everyone is out to get him on account of *his* race, etc.

The comments by TK regarding how obvious it was (to
any intelligent person, that is) that he could not have been
refering to an OTB rating/ranking have been drummed out
before, and not for Mr. Nick. In those earlier exchanges,
the "combatants" were all the same color, AFAIK, and so
Nick's new "interpretation" of condescending racism by TK
is obviously just barking up the wrong tree.

-- help bot



 
Date: 09 Sep 2006 13:35:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: View last 20 games and see the Winners.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> These recent games show yet another bug in Sanny's program, one I had
> not noticed before. If one inadvertently moves into check, or leaves
> one's king in check, the program simply captures the king and ends the
> game. See for example the two games by Alex Magnus. In a normal
> tournament game, the illegal check-ignoring move would not be allowed,
> and another, legal move would have to be made instead. Capturing the
> king is allowed only under certain blitz rules.
> Sanny should change his program so that any move that fails to
> relieve check is simply disallowed, just as the program does not allow
> a bishop to move like a rook.


Speaking of *recent* games, I have none since I am still in
limbo in the game where I repeated the position, over and over,
and have repeatedly tried to claim a draw here, but to no effect.
The only option on screen is to move, or click "resign".

I never noticed that Sanny's program allows one to move
into check, though I am hardly surprised that this flaw has
been discovered by Taylor Kingston [; >D], who Sanny at
one time insisted was the strongest player by far on his
site. Now he wants to believe Bobby Fischer is playing
there, so TK has moved down a notch despite being
undefeated and outrating Pfuscher by hundreds of points.

Another flaw in Sanny's program which is similar is the
fact that there is no consideration for the draw -- you
either win or you lose. One of my games was "cancelled"
because of this, another was scored a win for the computer
when it never even bothered to execute the winning attack
on the board, and I don't even remember what may have
happenned to any other games where I may have "drawn"
it by repetition. I am still wondering what would happen
in the case of insufficient mating material; most likely, IMO,
again one would have to contact Sanny personally to get
the game "cancelled", and this obviously invalidates his
rating calculations; you can't simply arbitrarily cancel
games and expect to have meaningful chess ratings.

Also, his program has changed dramatically over time,
and so a player (A) might face a quick-moving, horribly
weak computer opponent which "donates" pieces, and
thereby gain ten points, while a player (B) might then
face the now lower-rated program which has been greatly
improved, and lose. It would have made more sense to
adjust the computer's rating according to how well it
actually plays. An oversimplified example might be to
start with:

Beginner: 200
Easy: 400
Average: 600
Master: 800
Advance: 1000

But now things are much tougher, the program sees far deeper:

Beginner: 500
Easy: 800
Average: 1100
Master: 1400
Advance: 1600

Just an example. I know that in the interim, there have
been numerous modifications and the program has gotten
stronger, and weaker, and back and forth again and again.

IMO, chess is ideal for the modular programming technique,
whereby different functions are handled by separate routines.
It is not too difficult to have a module wherein the legal moves
are determined and illegal moves are rejected, as Mr. Kingston
mentioned. A separate function is position evaluation, and this
in turn is controlled by a routine governing time (which could be
how the "level" is determined. If thinking time determined the
level, then instead of Sanny's current approach, (where each
level improves dramatically over time while keeping the same
rating), new levels could be added, with more appropriate,
higher ratings, each time the program reaches greater depth
of search. For example, imagine (I say IMAGINE!) that
Sanny's programmers in 2025 come up with an engine which
can see 200 ply ahead, brute force. As it stands now, this
could conceivably be the Easy level, with a rating of, say,
1200. But wouldn't it make more sense if this improved
program started out with a rating around 3500? Just a
thought.

-- help bot



 
Date: 09 Sep 2006 06:49:12
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: View last 20 games and see the Winners.
These recent games show yet another bug in Sanny's program, one I had
not noticed before. If one inadvertently moves into check, or leaves
one's king in check, the program simply captures the king and ends the
game. See for example the two games by Alex Magnus. In a normal
tournament game, the illegal check-ignoring move would not be allowed,
and another, legal move would have to be made instead. Capturing the
king is allowed only under certain blitz rules.
Sanny should change his program so that any move that fails to
relieve check is simply disallowed, just as the program does not allow
a bishop to move like a rook.

Sanny wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> Do not shout, I too can.
>
> If you look last 20 games here is the list of winners.
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> 1. Nomorechess was beaten by Easy level once.
> 2. Richardby was beaten by Master Thrice
> 3. Pappu was Beaten Once. (by Beginner)
> 4. softtanks was beaten once (by Beginner)
> 5. dwight was beaten once {by Easy}
>
> While "Bobby Pfusher" was able to beat Advance level 5 times that too
> in 20/34/38/ Moves.
>
> If we reject "Bobby Pfusher" Games (15/20) Games were won by Computer.
>
> If we include "Bobby Pfusher Games (10/20) Games were won by Computer.
>
> Taylor Kingston beat 50+ Games (2300+ Rating)
> NomoreChess beat 50+ Games (A Chess Genius)
>
> When you analyse you are analysing Games Played by Strong Players. You
> forget that you will be beaten by the game very easily. You are looking
> at games Computer lost by strong players.
>
>
> If Kasparov beats "Bobby Fisher" 10 times I will not say I am better
> than "Bobby Fisher" Just because I have seen "Bobby Fisher" being
> beaten by a strong player.
>
> If you think the game is weak show me the Game you have won and tell me
> what weak move you found.
>
> I am sure 9/10 will loose the game with GetClub Chess.
>
>
> 5/10 will loose by Beginner Level
>
> 8/10 will loose by Easy Level
>
> 45/50 will loose by Normal Level
>
> 95/100 will loose by Master level {Taylor Kingston, Nomorechess, Bob
> will win}
>
> 99/100 will loose by Advance Level {Bobby Pfusher will win}
>
> The game is very good now. Just see the Games played in last 20.
>
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> If you beat a game and find something wrong let me know it and that
> will be removed.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html



  
Date: 24 Sep 2006 00:30:57
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!!

help bot wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Zed is faster. Zed is ster. Zed can talk to you as well as play
> > chess. Zed always beats Sannybot.
>
>
> IMO, Mr. Rob [Banks?] has yet to demonstrate any
> intellectual superiority whatever on the part of Zed
> over Sanny. In fact, I strongly suspect that of the two,
> Sanny is somewhat ster, though perhaps not by a
> wide gin. ;>D



When was the last time Sannybot spoke about Taylor, or Phil or Brennen
or Sam Sloan?

http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3
> ----------
>
> Today being a Saturday, I was able to actually finish
> a couple of games against Sanny's Beginner level. The
> play nearly comes to a halt upon reaching a complex
> middlegame/opening position, despite the screen
> showing a depth of only three or four plys.
> One problem is that the program appears to restart
> several times, the displayed depth of search going up,
> then dropping back, again and again. But the games
> are interesting, which is a vast improvement over where
> we stood several months ago.
>
> -- help bot



  
Date: 23 Sep 2006 15:42:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!

Nick wrote:
> Of course, Taylor Kingston has snipped the part where
> I pointed out *again* that his peak USCF postal chess
> rating of 1806 (which converts to the mid-2200s today)
> cannot quite support his claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating.

Nick, I am surprised to find you so uninformed. This was all
discussed at length here months ago. My claim of 2300+ was based on the
assumption that USCF simply added 500 points to the old rating. Soon
after I learned that this assumption was not correct at the higher
levels, and that my 1806 postal rating of 1985 would have converted to
about 2260-2270 in the new system. For example, you can find me
acknowledging this in a post from back in January:

"Therefore I was 1806 (in the old system, converting to about
2260-2270 Elo) from December 1984 into early 1985." -- 3 January 2006

> But Taylor Kingston has been arrogant and dishonest
> in attempting to defend his '2300+ Elo' rating claim
> as having been completely honest and accurate.

Perhaps our normally courteous and knowledgeable Nick will wish to
revise that rather rude and inaccurate statement in light of the facts.



  
Date: 23 Sep 2006 13:31:30
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Game Speed increased !!!
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > Sanny wrote:
> > > > Game Rectified Now it will not take much time.
> > >
> > > We've heard this before.
> >
> > Many writers in rec.games.chess.* like
> > to reiterate their false statements.
>
> Boy, ain't that the truth!

Taylor Kingston has a record of reiterating
his false statements in rec.games.chess.*

> > > > > Looking at 4-5 games, one can easily see the true
> > > > > rating of a chess player. I see that Pfuscher is, say,
> > > > > 3000+, while TK is maybe 1600. :>D
> > > >
> > > > Earlier you said Taylor Kingston is 2300+ Rating?
> > >
> > > That was in postal chess, over 20 years ago.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston claimed to have a '2300+ Elo' rating,
> > without specifying the form of chess involved.

Of course, Taylor Kingston has snipped the part where
I pointed out *again* that his peak USCF postal chess
rating of 1806 (which converts to the mid-2200s today)
cannot quite support his claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating.

It's nice to know that Juergen Ren, for instance, has
not been deceived by Taylor Kingston's continuing
reiterations of his '2300+ Elo' rating claim.

> Surely, Nick, you are not admitting that
> someone of your intelligence

I have long noticed Taylor Kingston's
condescending attitude toward me.

For the record, Taylor Kingston, a white American, has
apparently stereotyped me (in the thread 'Sam Sloan
appears in X3') as a likely adherent or supporter of
W.D. Fard and/or the Nation of Islam. But Taylor
Kingston has been unable to cite any evidence that
I have written anything about W.D. Fard and/or the
Nation of Islam. So how could Taylor Kingston have
read my mind?

> was unable to figure out what form of chess I referred to?

I have been through this part before with Taylor Kingston,
who has been acting like a dishonest troll about this issue.

When Taylor Kingston made his original claim of a
'2300+ Elo' rating, I did *not* assume that his claim
necessarily referred to OTB chess. I checked the
FIDE website (which had no rating for Taylor Kingston)
and the USCF website. The highest rating at the USCF
website that I could find for Taylor Kingston was his
2037 correspondence chess rating. I did *not* assume
that was necessarily Taylor Kingston's peak correspondence
chess rating, but, as 2037 is far short of 2300, I would
need much stronger evidence to accept Taylor Kingston's
'2300+ Elo' rating claim. Given *only* the evidence of
his published 2037 correspondence rating, I found it
plausible enough that Taylor Kingston may have been
rated slightly higher (perhaps 2100), but a 263 point
increase over the last published rating requires some
corroboration beyond a player's continuing assertions.

As far as I know, Taylor Kingston has always acted
self-righteously as though it should have been obvious
to everyone that his published 2037 correspondence
chess rating must have *completely* supported his
original '2300+ Elo' rating claim. In fact, *not* even
his converted peak 1806 correspondence chess rating
can completely support Taylor Kingston's '2300+ Elo'
rating claim.

I believe that Larry Parr has attempted to make too
much of Taylor Kingston's false '2300+ Elo' rating claim.
(It's not that unusual for players to exaggerate their ratings.)
But Taylor Kingston has been arrogant and dishonest
in attempting to defend his '2300+ Elo' rating claim
as having been completely honest and accurate.

--Nick



 
Date: 09 Sep 2006 01:13:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: View last 20 games and see the Winners.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

> > If we reject "Bobby Pfusher" Games (15/20) Games were won by Computer.
>
> If we ignore the last two major wars, Germany rules the world.


Hmmm. Never thought of it that way before.



> > I am sure 9/10 will loose the game with GetClub Chess.
>
> I am equally sure the next Pope will be a Jew.


Okay, but he's going to have to convert first. A representative
from our "human relations" department is en route to expedite
the process. Since it's the next Pope we're talking about, I
took the liberty of sending our Grand Inquisitor himself to
handle the, uh, "negotiations". Just tell the gentleman we
will discuss this in private, in dungeon 3, level 6.

-- help bot



 
Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:06:32
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: View last 20 games and see the Winners.

Sanny wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> Do not shout, I too can.

"He says, 'I can shout -- don't hear you.'" -- Firesign Theater,
"Waiting for the Electrician of Someone Like Him"

> If you look last 20 games here is the list of winners.
> http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10
>
> 1. Nomorechess was beaten by Easy level once.
> 2. Richardby was beaten by Master Thrice
> 3. Pappu was Beaten Once. (by Beginner)
> 4. softtanks was beaten once (by Beginner)
> 5. dwight was beaten once {by Easy}
>
> While "Bobby Pfusher" was able to beat Advance level 5 times that too
> in 20/34/38/ Moves.
>
> If we reject "Bobby Pfusher" Games (15/20) Games were won by Computer.

If we ignore the last two major wars, Germany rules the world.

> If you think the game is weak show me the Game you have won and tell me
> what weak move you found.

OK, I took a quick look with Fritz8 at Bobby Pfuscher's latest game.
The results are not pretty, in what they show about Sanny's program:

Sannybot-Pfuscher: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Bc4 Qc7 5.d4

Of course if 5.Bxd5 Qxe5+.

5...cxd4 6.Qxd4 Nb6 7.Bb5 Nc6 8.Bxc6 dxc6

I'm no expert on the Alapin Sicilian, but White's approach here
seems rather poor. Though Black's knight is a bit out of play on b6,
he now has the bishop pair and no difficulties in development.
White's e-pawn is vulnerable. Better would have been the normal 4.d4
instead of 4.Bc4.

9.Bg5?

This can't be right. Why not 9.Nf3, the natural move? Black now
develops easily, gaining time by threats to White's queen and e-pawn.


9...c5 10.Qe4

Having to defend the e-pawn makes life awkward for White's queen.
If 10.Qe3 Nc4, or 10.Qf4 h6 11.Qh4 (11.Bh4 g5) 11...Qxe5+.

10...Be6 11.Kf1??

Terrible. I suppose this was intended to prevent the veiled threat to
g2, but again, why not 11.Nf3, the natural move? The text not only
fails to further White's development, but forfeits the right to castle.
White is as good as lost.

11...Bd5 12.Qf4 0-0-0

Also good was 12...Qc6 13.Qg3 Qb5+ 14.c4 (or 14.Ne2 Qxb2) 14...Bxc4+
15.Ke1 Qxb2 16.Qc3 Qxc3+ 17.Nxc3, and Black is up two pawns.

13.Qg4+?

13.Nd2 was about White's last chance to get out of the opening
alive. Now he's completely busted.

13...Be6 14.Qe4 (if 14.Qg3 Nc4) 14...Rd1+ 15.Ke2 Qd7

White's undeveloped back rank is now paralyzed, and there is no way
to stop ...Bf5, winning at least a piece.

16.f3 Bf5 17.Qe3 e6

Black pauses to prevent 18.Qxc5. No need to hurry. With both knights
pinned, White is helpless.

18.Bf4??

Hastening the end, not that it matters much. 18.Kf2 was ginally
better. Now White must lose his queen or the equivalent.

18...Nc4 19.Qc1

If 19.Qf2 Qd3#.

19...Qd3+ -- Faster than 19...Rxc1. -- 20.Kf2 Qf1+ 21.Kg3 Qe1#

> I am sure 9/10 will loose the game with GetClub Chess.

I am equally sure the next Pope will be a Jew.



 
Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:19:29
From: Sanny
Subject: View last 20 games and see the Winners.
Hello Guys,

Do not shout, I too can.

If you look last 20 games here is the list of winners.
http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10

1. Nomorechess was beaten by Easy level once.
2. Richardby was beaten by Master Thrice
3. Pappu was Beaten Once. (by Beginner)
4. softtanks was beaten once (by Beginner)
5. dwight was beaten once {by Easy}

While "Bobby Pfusher" was able to beat Advance level 5 times that too
in 20/34/38/ Moves.

If we reject "Bobby Pfusher" Games (15/20) Games were won by Computer.

If we include "Bobby Pfusher Games (10/20) Games were won by Computer.

Taylor Kingston beat 50+ Games (2300+ Rating)
NomoreChess beat 50+ Games (A Chess Genius)

When you analyse you are analysing Games Played by Strong Players. You
forget that you will be beaten by the game very easily. You are looking
at games Computer lost by strong players.


If Kasparov beats "Bobby Fisher" 10 times I will not say I am better
than "Bobby Fisher" Just because I have seen "Bobby Fisher" being
beaten by a strong player.

If you think the game is weak show me the Game you have won and tell me
what weak move you found.

I am sure 9/10 will loose the game with GetClub Chess.


5/10 will loose by Beginner Level

8/10 will loose by Easy Level

45/50 will loose by Normal Level

95/100 will loose by Master level {Taylor Kingston, Nomorechess, Bob
will win}

99/100 will loose by Advance Level {Bobby Pfusher will win}

The game is very good now. Just see the Games played in last 20.

http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10

If you beat a game and find something wrong let me know it and that
will be removed.

Bye
Sanny

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



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 21:08:51
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: For faster Chess game get JVM
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <[email protected] > writes:

> On 2006-09-17, Sanny wrote:
>> If you are looking for fast game download JVM
>>
>> You should have latest JVM then the Game will play fast.
>>
>> Download JVM from http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html
>>
>> Here download J2SE v 1.4.2_12 SDK
>>
>> It is 50 MB file. Once you install it the game speed will improve
>> dramatically.
>
> If you think that a different version of the JVM is going to make a
> 60-fold improvement (to get the speed you claim), you are dreaming.

You misspelled "lying".


>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> ===================================================================
> Author:
> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/


  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 21:08:18
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: For faster Chess game get JVM
"Sanny" <[email protected] > writes:

> If you are looking for fast game download JVM
>
> You should have latest JVM then the Game will play fast.

No, it won't


>
> Download JVM from http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html

That's not the latest.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/


  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 21:05:31
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: GetClub Chess won 6 out of 10 Games.
"Sanny" <[email protected] > writes:

>> When even the beginner level takes >1 min per move despite a 3.2GHz CPU,
>> then you know that once more you have totally messed up your programming.
>>
>
> No, Beginner Level takes 10-30 seconds per move on an average. Only in
> some cases it goes beyond 1 minute.

That has not been my experience. Unless by "rare" you mean "every move
once out of book".

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/


 
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:06:20
From:
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
> Wow. You mean you actually believed you were
> good enough to win REAL money? :>D
>
> Only "stars" like nomorechess and Taylor Kingston
> win the "really big" prizes!
>
> -- help bot

One day I'll win $9 playing chess like nomorechess and Taylor Kingston!
I'm not as sure about beating them over-the-board.



 
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:02:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

michael adams wrote:
> Wilma wrote:
> >
> > I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular interest
> > myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it discouraged. Who
> > knows that it is not the beginning of something the chess world will
> > someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers didn't start by building
> > the space shuttle. What Sammy is doing may also encourage experimentation
> > by others, giving us the kind of growth diversity of creativity is known to
> > yield in other endeavors. So I say, keep at it Sammy and your commentators.
> > If nothing else, it's just good fun to do something like what he's doing.
> >
> > Wilma
>
> Oh! too fun. It occurs to me that people like Taylor Kingston &
> nomorechess & Wilma are all wimmen never happier & at ease than
> nattering away about well - anything. The phone rings as dinner is
> served & it's Sanny the sub-continental call centre nuisance again
> enquiring whether I'm interested in reducing my cell phone bill. I'm
> politeness incarnate & ask about the weather in Delhi etc before
> re-stating my complete & total disinterest in the 'product' he intends
> to flog. This is wise policy because the rude & crude phone-bangers are
> spitefully added to other nuisance databanks which clearly need not
> concern TK Wilma & the Bot. The men in Scotland wear the skirts btw..


Don't mind Mickey Adams, Wilma: he's just sore because
Taylor Kingston and I keep taking the first prize money at
GetClub.com. Okay, maybe Sanny's program is a waste of
time, but then so is reading and posting here. I finally find a
program I can beat at chess, and everyone complains that my
brilliant victories should be kept hushed. Hrummmph!

-- help bot



 
Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:38:04
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular interest
myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it discouraged. Who
knows that it is not the beginning of something the chess world will
someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers didn't start by building
the space shuttle. What Sammy is doing may also encourage experimentation
by others, giving us the kind of growth diversity of creativity is known to
yield in other endeavors. So I say, keep at it Sammy and your commentators.
If nothing else, it's just good fun to do something like what he's doing.

Wilma


"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] >
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
> site & chess program by several people.
>
> I have great difficulty in understanding why. From what others have
> said, it would appear to be a brain-dead chess program which plays bad
> chess very slowly. There are vapor ware prizes, since you do not
> actually get any money.
>
> Why not do what I do with software when it is poor - just forget it and
> find decent software? There are plenty of decent chess programs around,
> so what is the attraction of playing a bad one multiple times? If you
> want to play human players why not just use a decent chess server?
>
> If it was an open-source program, I could see the point in reporting
> bugs if the developer is sufficiently competent to fix them. But in this
> case it's clear the software is closed source with a developer/salesman
> who seems to be totally clueless as to how software should be developed.
>
> Please enlighten me to the attraction. I'm obviously missing something.
>



  
Date: 18 Sep 2006 19:20:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Wilma <[email protected] > wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular
> interest myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it
> discouraged. Who knows that it is not the beginning of something the
> chess world will someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers
> didn't start by building the space shuttle.

They didn't, you're right. However, if Sanny were a Wright Brother,
he'd be claiming that his plane could carry five thousand people
across the Atlantic in ten minutes and deaf to all suggestions that,
actually, it could only just get off the ground.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Transparent Shack (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a house in the woods but you can
see right through it and it wants to
hurt you!


  
Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:49:30
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Wilma wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular interest
> myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it discouraged. Who
> knows that it is not the beginning of something the chess world will
> someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers didn't start by building
> the space shuttle.

No, but those building the shuttle expanded on the knowledge from the
Wright Brothers. Sanny is not advancing anything.

But the biggest problem I see is that he is so over-confident of his
program, while it is very obvious to anyone that knows a little about
software development, that he is developing software in a very very
haphazard way.

> What Sammy is doing may also encourage experimentation
> by others,

Lets hope not. His strategies for his program are a model of how *not*
to develop software. I will not say a good model, since it so obviously
flawed.

> giving us the kind of growth diversity of creativity is known to
> yield in other endeavors.

Diversity maybe, but not for the better.


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)


  
Date: 07 Sep 2006 13:09:37
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Wilma wrote:
>
> I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular interest
> myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it discouraged. Who
> knows that it is not the beginning of something the chess world will
> someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers didn't start by building
> the space shuttle. What Sammy is doing may also encourage experimentation
> by others, giving us the kind of growth diversity of creativity is known to
> yield in other endeavors. So I say, keep at it Sammy and your commentators.
> If nothing else, it's just good fun to do something like what he's doing.
>
> Wilma

Oh! too fun. It occurs to me that people like Taylor Kingston &
nomorechess & Wilma are all wimmen never happier & at ease than
nattering away about well - anything. The phone rings as dinner is
served & it's Sanny the sub-continental call centre nuisance again
enquiring whether I'm interested in reducing my cell phone bill. I'm
politeness incarnate & ask about the weather in Delhi etc before
re-stating my complete & total disinterest in the 'product' he intends
to flog. This is wise policy because the rude & crude phone-bangers are
spitefully added to other nuisance databanks which clearly need not
concern TK Wilma & the Bot. The men in Scotland wear the skirts btw..


   
Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:24:23
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
We're never more encouraged to continue nattering than when a serious
contributor like your good self joins us in, well, nattering. :)

Wilma


michael adams <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Wilma wrote:
>>
>> I understand what you're saying, and I don't have any particular
>> interest myself in Sammy's effort, but I would not like to see it
>> discouraged. Who knows that it is not the beginning of something the
>> chess world will someday appreciate? After all, the Wright Brothers
>> didn't start by building the space shuttle. What Sammy is doing may
>> also encourage experimentation by others, giving us the kind of
>> growth diversity of creativity is known to yield in other endeavors.
>> So I say, keep at it Sammy and your commentators. If nothing else,
>> it's just good fun to do something like what he's doing.
>>
>> Wilma
>
> Oh! too fun. It occurs to me that people like Taylor Kingston &
> nomorechess & Wilma are all wimmen never happier & at ease than
> nattering away about well - anything. The phone rings as dinner is
> served & it's Sanny the sub-continental call centre nuisance again
> enquiring whether I'm interested in reducing my cell phone bill. I'm
> politeness incarnate & ask about the weather in Delhi etc before
> re-stating my complete & total disinterest in the 'product' he intends
> to flog. This is wise policy because the rude & crude phone-bangers
> are spitefully added to other nuisance databanks which clearly need
> not concern TK Wilma & the Bot. The men in Scotland wear the skirts
> btw..
>



 
Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:30:19
From: Martin S
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
Dave (from the UK) wrote:

> Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
> site & chess program by several people.

Oh, and here I was thinking it was the same guy with several addresses
spamming the ng.

tin S

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


  
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:13:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Thats the only part I don't get - it seems that it takes hours to carry
> > out the joke by playing games that can only ruin your OTB play.
>
> I was having fun defeating Sanny's "invincible" program, but alas, it's
> slow. There's no excitement in defeating a level called "Beginner", and
> the higher levels are too glacial for me.
>
> The fake crash prizes are the worst. He claims we won some, but
> where's the money? He didn't even respond to my request to donate our
> supposed winnings to charity. Nick and I suggested an assortment of
> international, reputable charities.


Wow. You mean you actually believed you were
good enough to win REAL money? : >D

The prizes are "funds" which can only be used to
purchase more free games on Sanny's Web site.
But I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you.
Only "stars" like nomorechess and Taylor Kingston
win the "really big" prizes!

-- help bot



 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 14:09:03
From:
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
[email protected] wrote:
> Thats the only part I don't get - it seems that it takes hours to carry
> out the joke by playing games that can only ruin your OTB play.

I was having fun defeating Sanny's "invincible" program, but alas, it's
slow. There's no excitement in defeating a level called "Beginner", and
the higher levels are too glacial for me.

The fake crash prizes are the worst. He claims we won some, but
where's the money? He didn't even respond to my request to donate our
supposed winnings to charity. Nick and I suggested an assortment of
international, reputable charities.



  
Date: 06 Sep 2006 10:42:25
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
[email protected] wrote:

> I was having fun defeating Sanny's "invincible" program, but alas, it's
> slow. There's no excitement in defeating a level called "Beginner", and
> the higher levels are too glacial for me.

I would think the novalty soon wears off myself. That is why I am a bit
puzzled that people have not long since given up with it.

I can't help feeling one could do something more productive with ones time.

> The fake crash prizes are the worst. He claims we won some, but
> where's the money? He didn't even respond to my request to donate our
> supposed winnings to charity. Nick and I suggested an assortment of
> international, reputable charities.
>

Although I suspect at $5, the admin cost might be greater than any
benifit. Perhaps not though.


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)


 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 22:20:03
From: Q
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
I for sure like this soap to continue. It's fun to read! :)

Although it's getting a bit boring to read the spam emails which have

A LINK TO MY CHESS SITE

A LINK TO MY CHESS SITE

A LINK TO MY CHESS SITE

in every post.

I would say one link would be sufficiŽnt. Even when you're just spamming
your website. LOL




 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:15:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
>>
> I think given the history, the onus should be on Sanny to prove his
> program plays well, rather than you to disprove it.

I think for some it is an inside joke; they know this isn't even up to
the programs of the 1980s; the only way anyone can lose is by being
bored for 6 hours waiting for the thing to move. And yet Sanny seems to
think his program is really good, and getting better.

Thats the only part I don't get - it seems that it takes hours to carry
out the joke by playing games that can only ruin your OTB play.

Could Sanny's program draw this position as white?

Kb3 Rd5 Qf8 a2
Kb5 Qa8 Ra5 Rc5 Bg8 Nb6 Nc6 a3

My computer flashes 0.00 in less than a second on just about any
commercial program, and once a human sees the trick, which requires a
modicum of calculation, its easy too. But I bet Sanny will never get
his program to where it could find the draw. It would probably always
make the first, "obvious" move - and take an hour to do it.



 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 11:34:45
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> >
> >>Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
> >>site & chess program by several people.
> >>
> >>I have great difficulty in understanding why. From what others have
> >>said, it would appear to be a brain-dead chess program which plays bad
> >>chess very slowly. There are vapor ware prizes, since you do not
> >>actually get any money.
> >>
>
> >>Please enlighten me to the attraction. I'm obviously missing something.
> >
> >
> > I suppose it's due mainly to Sanny's repeated claims that he has
> > finally gotten all the bugs out and now his program is invincible.
> > People want to prove him wrong.
> >
>
> As a matter of interest, who are *you* personally trying trying to prove
> this to? Obviously you can't speak for others, but I'm interested if you
> are trying to prove it to yourself, Sanny, or some other group of
> individuals such as readers of the newsgroups.
>
> How long would you consider trying to prove this for - another day,
> week, month, year, decade ...?

Such questions have never occurred to me.

> I would have personally thought there would come a time (and I feel that
> time has long since passed) where it is best to say to Sanny that *he*
> should prove the fact he has removed most of the bugs, by entering it
> into a computer chess tournament and getting a half-reasonable score.
> Or perhaps put his money where his mouth is, and have a competition in
> which the looser pays some money to the winner. (not virtual money like
> Sanny's prizes).
>
> I think given the history, the onus should be on Sanny to prove his
> program plays well, rather than you to disprove it.

A quite reasonable opinion.

> --
> Dave (from the UK)
>
> Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
> It is always of the form: [email protected]
> Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
>
> http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)



 
Date: 05 Sep 2006 05:41:58
From:
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
> site & chess program by several people.
>
> I have great difficulty in understanding why. From what others have
> said, it would appear to be a brain-dead chess program which plays bad
> chess very slowly. There are vapor ware prizes, since you do not
> actually get any money.
>
> Why not do what I do with software when it is poor - just forget it and
> find decent software? There are plenty of decent chess programs around,
> so what is the attraction of playing a bad one multiple times? If you
> want to play human players why not just use a decent chess server?
>
> If it was an open-source program, I could see the point in reporting
> bugs if the developer is sufficiently competent to fix them. But in this
> case it's clear the software is closed source with a developer/salesman
> who seems to be totally clueless as to how software should be developed.
>
> Please enlighten me to the attraction. I'm obviously missing something.

I suppose it's due mainly to Sanny's repeated claims that he has
finally gotten all the bugs out and now his program is invincible.
People want to prove him wrong.



  
Date: 05 Sep 2006 18:59:54
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Why bother with Sanny's program ???
[email protected] wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) wrote:
>
>>Reading these newsgroups, there are countless posts about Sanny's web
>>site & chess program by several people.
>>
>>I have great difficulty in understanding why. From what others have
>>said, it would appear to be a brain-dead chess program which plays bad
>>chess very slowly. There are vapor ware prizes, since you do not
>>actually get any money.
>>

>>Please enlighten me to the attraction. I'm obviously missing something.
>
>
> I suppose it's due mainly to Sanny's repeated claims that he has
> finally gotten all the bugs out and now his program is invincible.
> People want to prove him wrong.
>

As a matter of interest, who are *you* personally trying trying to prove
this to? Obviously you can't speak for others, but I'm interested if you
are trying to prove it to yourself, Sanny, or some other group of
individuals such as readers of the newsgroups.

How long would you consider trying to prove this for - another day,
week, month, year, decade ...?

I would have personally thought there would come a time (and I feel that
time has long since passed) where it is best to say to Sanny that *he*
should prove the fact he has removed most of the bugs, by entering it
into a computer chess tournament and getting a half-reasonable score.
Or perhaps put his money where his mouth is, and have a competition in
which the looser pays some money to the winner. (not virtual money like
Sanny's prizes).

I think given the history, the onus should be on Sanny to prove his
program plays well, rather than you to disprove it.
--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)