Main
Date: 20 Feb 2008 23:38:38
From: Sanny
Subject: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
I found that When Playing with Rybka it was processing the Moves on a
fast Server.

A server is 15-20 times faster than a Desktop where Applet is loaded.

I got below Information from a Website

"There are certain workstation models on the ket with a total of
eight cores today. With each core able to perform 5.2 gigaflops (5.2
billion floating-point operations per second) as a measure of peak
performance, a single workstation could perform 20.8 gigaflops. "

While a desktop works on arround 1 gigaflop. So Rybka is getting 20
times more processing Power.

Other thing is that It is written in Native Language (Assembly / C)
Which again works 10-20 times faster than an Java Applet.

So Rybka is getting Atleast 15* 10 = 150 times to 20*20 = 400 times
more processing Power.

So Roughly Rybka is getting 200-400 times more processing than
GetClub.

I found when Playing with Normal Level, Normal took 16 times more time
than Rybka So we can say Rybka was processing 400/16 = 25 times more
processing.

With 25 Times more Processing It can easily beat the Normal Level.
Incase Rybka is Run on a single Core Ordinary Desktop and Given 25
times less time than Normal Level then that will be a equal Match.

Say Normal Thinking in 1-2 min and Rybka on Ordinary Single Core
Machine at 3-4 seconds / Move. Then Both will be given equal
Processing.

I am confident Normal Level will give good Challenge to Rybka thinking
3-4 seconds on Single Core Machine.

Does anyone have Rybka on Single Core Machine? Then let me know the
Games played between Normal Level and Rybka at 3-4 Seconds.

Rybka was winning the Matches because of Fast Servers and Native Code.
In future when all will be satisfied with GetClub Chess. I will bring
a Downloadable version of GetClub Game which will be 20 times faster
than the Applet you are currently Playing.

But before I invest Money in designing that version I want to be
assured that GetClub Program is not playing any wrong move. If you
find any mistake in its game do inform me.

Bye
Sanny

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







 
Date: 25 Feb 2008 08:20:17
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub.com Web site design
> =A0 A short while back, these graphic chessboards
> did appear, but now they are gone again. =A0Maybe
> it is my security software, since my browser
> indicates that cookies are enabled. =A0Anyway, the

Earlier Boards were displayed everytime. Now board is displayed only
when Cookie is enabled. Incase you are unable to see the Boards it
means the Cookies are not allowed for GetClub.com website.

Here is how you can Enable Cookies

To enable cookies, follow the browser-specific instructions below.

Mozilla Firefox (1.0 final release and earlier)

1. Click on the "Tools" menu.
2. Select "Options."
3. Select the "Privacy" icon in the left panel.
4. Check the box corresponding to "Allow sites to set cookies."
5. Click "OK."

Netscape 7.1/Mozilla 5.0

1. Click on the "Edit" menu.
2. Select "Preferences."
3. Click on the arrow next to "Privacy & Security" in the scrolling
window.
4. Under "Privacy & Security," select "Cookies."
5. Select "Enable all cookies."
6. Click "OK."

Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0+

1. Click on the "Tools" menu.
2. Select "Internet Options."
3. Click on the "Privacy" tab.
4. Under "Settings," click the "Default" button (or manually slide the
bar down to "Medium").
5. Click "OK."

Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.x

1. Click on the "Tools" menu.
2. Select "Internet Options."
3. Click on the "Security" tab.
4. Click the "Custom Level" button.
5. Scroll down to the "Cookies" section.
6. Set "Allow cookies that are stored on your computer" to "Enable."
7. Set "Allow per-session cookies" to "Enable."
8. Click "OK."

Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.x

1. Click on the "View" menu.
2. Select "Internet Options."
3. Click on the "Advanced" tab.
4. Scroll down to find "Cookies" in the "Security" section.
5. Select "Always accept cookies."
6. Click "OK."

Netscape Communicator 4.x

1. Click on the "Edit" menu.
2. Select "Preferences."
3. Find the "Cookies" section in the "Advanced" category.
4. Select "Accept".

Bye
Sanny

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


 
Date: 23 Feb 2008 20:10:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub.com Web site design
On Feb 23, 12:06 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> I think cookie is not enabled on your System. Do you see your Email
> Address at the login Box? If Cookies are allowed your login email will
> be shown typed.
>
> Secondly do you see the Chess Board in the Last Played Games? Only
> when Cookies are enabled you can see the boards else you will just see
> the Moves played by Player.


A short while back, these graphic chessboards
did appear, but now they are gone again. Maybe
it is my security software, since my browser
indicates that cookies are enabled. Anyway, the
reason I don't very often comment on the posted
games here in rgc, is that the moves are given in
GetClub's own funky notation, not in something
which can be copied and pasted into a program
like say, Arena or Fritz. This means I would
need to set up a chessboard, which is a lot
more work for me; heck, just finding the room
for a chessboard would be work!


-- help bot



 
Date: 23 Feb 2008 09:06:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub.com Web site design
On Feb 23, 12:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But just as the GC program's
> > > ratings swept upward when Sanny plugged
> > > the hole whereby unscrupulous players
> > > could simply never complete games they
> > > were losing, so now we have mysterious
> > > anonymous players who only will report
> > > here *if* they win. =A0Too bad I no longer
> > > have any of those old machines, for I
> > > think they would be very useful in figuring
> > > out where GC stands on a table of sub-
> > > 2000 computer players.
>
> > There is no question at all thatGetClubhas improved a great deal in
> > the past several months and I suspect the average duffer such as
> > myself would find a challenge in playing against it. =A0And, I really do=

> > want to do some sort of systematic rating evaluation, but this is
> > hampered by
>
> > 1) interface bugs and just plain annoyances from the site design
>
> =A0 I have noticed that when I go to Sanny's Web
> site using Internet Explorer, things look quite
> different from my normal Firefox browser, which
> goes straight to the "playchess" area.
>
> =A0 First of all, a pop-up box appears, and you
> have to get rid of it before proceeding; this is a
> design flaw, IMO.
>
> =A0 Secondly, you are asked to log in, which is
> normal for this type of site. =A0But then you are
> asked to choose which level you intend to play
> against, even though Sanny has told us that it
> makes no difference which box you click /here/;
> that's another design flaw (redundancy).
>
> =A0 Another issue is the fact that there is no way
> to escape a drawn game and start another,
> except by resigning. =A0For instance, suppose
> you have a King and the program has a King
> and a Knight: this is already drawn according
> to the laws ofchess, yet if you happen to be
> playing the Advance level, you will grow old
> trying to get a fifty moves draw or a threefold
> repetition of position, just so you can move
> on to the next game. =A0(And even if Sanny has
> fixed this particular example, there are plenty
> of others which he cannot have fixed, since he
> doesn't actually know the rules of the game.)
>
> =A0 The newest design flaw I know of is where
> players are allowed to comment on games;
> you cannot log in, and thus, you cannot
> comment. =A0Why, oh why, would you be asked
> to "log in" a second time, when you already
> logged in at the beginning? =A0There is no logic,
> no rhyme or reason in the design of the GC
> site. =A0Almost everything is there, somewhere,
> but its arrangement and order are seemingly
> random.
>
> =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think cookie is not enabled on your System. Do you see your Email
Address at the login Box? If Cookies are allowed your login email will
be shown typed.

Secondly do you see the Chess Board in the Last Played Games? Only
when Cookies are enabled you can see the boards else you will just see
the Moves played by Player.

I have read them and try to see if these can be solved.

Bye
Sanny

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


 
Date: 22 Feb 2008 23:19:04
From: help bot
Subject: GetClub.com Web site design
On Feb 22, 9:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > But just as the GC program's
> > ratings swept upward when Sanny plugged
> > the hole whereby unscrupulous players
> > could simply never complete games they
> > were losing, so now we have mysterious
> > anonymous players who only will report
> > here *if* they win. Too bad I no longer
> > have any of those old machines, for I
> > think they would be very useful in figuring
> > out where GC stands on a table of sub-
> > 2000 computer players.
>
> There is no question at all that GetClub has improved a great deal in
> the past several months and I suspect the average duffer such as
> myself would find a challenge in playing against it. And, I really do
> want to do some sort of systematic rating evaluation, but this is
> hampered by
>
> 1) interface bugs and just plain annoyances from the site design


I have noticed that when I go to Sanny's Web
site using Internet Explorer, things look quite
different from my normal Firefox browser, which
goes straight to the "play chess" area.

First of all, a pop-up box appears, and you
have to get rid of it before proceeding; this is a
design flaw, IMO.

Secondly, you are asked to log in, which is
normal for this type of site. But then you are
asked to choose which level you intend to play
against, even though Sanny has told us that it
makes no difference which box you click /here/;
that's another design flaw (redundancy).

Another issue is the fact that there is no way
to escape a drawn game and start another,
except by resigning. For instance, suppose
you have a King and the program has a King
and a Knight: this is already drawn according
to the laws of chess, yet if you happen to be
playing the Advance level, you will grow old
trying to get a fifty moves draw or a threefold
repetition of position, just so you can move
on to the next game. (And even if Sanny has
fixed this particular example, there are plenty
of others which he cannot have fixed, since he
doesn't actually know the rules of the game.)

The newest design flaw I know of is where
players are allowed to comment on games;
you cannot log in, and thus, you cannot
comment. Why, oh why, would you be asked
to "log in" a second time, when you already
logged in at the beginning? There is no logic,
no rhyme or reason in the design of the GC
site. Almost everything is there, somewhere,
but its arrangement and order are seemingly
random.


-- help bot







 
Date: 22 Feb 2008 08:30:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
> There is no question at all that GetClub has improved a great deal in
> the past several months and I suspect the average duffer such as
> myself would find a challenge in playing against it. =A0And, I really do
> want to do some sort of systematic rating evaluation, but this is
> hampered by

This gives me A lot of Satisfaction.

> 1) interface bugs and just plain annoyances from the site design

Yes whenever we modify the game for improvement new bugs come out but
they can be removed once found.

> 2) the need for a LOT of spare time to test against anything but easy
> level

Yes it Takes 20-40 sec / Move.

> Sanny, please do three things
>
> 1) delete the current chipschap game as it is spoiled by last night's
> bug

What was your username? I have deleted all the games that were played
yesterday So that all buggy games are removed.

> 2) take a realistic approach; GC is getting better all the time, there
> is no need to make wild claims that turn people off

Once every one certifies this I will never have to tell that.

Earlier 9/ 10 Players used to say the GetClub game plays bad.
Now 6/10 Think the Game plays Ok.

Still 4/10 players feel GetClub Plays Bad.

My mission is that everyone says GetClub plays good Moves.

> 3) explain where the name "GetClub" came from?

Thats a mystry, not yet solved.

Bye
Sanny

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




 
Date: 22 Feb 2008 06:42:23
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
> But just as the GC program's
> ratings swept upward when Sanny plugged
> the hole whereby unscrupulous players
> could simply never complete games they
> were losing, so now we have mysterious
> anonymous players who only will report
> here *if* they win. Too bad I no longer
> have any of those old machines, for I
> think they would be very useful in figuring
> out where GC stands on a table of sub-
> 2000 computer players.

There is no question at all that GetClub has improved a great deal in
the past several months and I suspect the average duffer such as
myself would find a challenge in playing against it. And, I really do
want to do some sort of systematic rating evaluation, but this is
hampered by

1) interface bugs and just plain annoyances from the site design
2) the need for a LOT of spare time to test against anything but easy
level
3) Sanny's unending boasting, which makes me want to just chuck the
whole thing.

Sanny, please do three things

1) delete the current chipschap game as it is spoiled by last night's
bug
2) take a realistic approach; GC is getting better all the time, there
is no need to make wild claims that turn people off
3) explain where the name "GetClub" came from?


 
Date: 22 Feb 2008 03:18:40
From: Sanny
Subject: A Bug found and removed
On Feb 22, 11:36=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Looks like some new bug has =A0crept in.
>
> Yesterday Taylor Kingston was saying same thing.
>
> Today Chipschap is complaing same thing.
>
> And now Help Bot also Saying that Proigram not making any move?
>
> Has the Program stopped making any Move? Then Tell me There may be
> some bug that is causing such problem.
>
> I played 3 games I never got such Bug. Still there is something wrong
> somewhere that need to be fix.
>
> Bye
> Sanny

Yes a Bug was found and Removed. Now it will not Hang and will play as
it used to before.

Bye
Sanny

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


 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 22:36:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
Looks like some new bug has crept in.

Yesterday Taylor Kingston was saying same thing.

Today Chipschap is complaing same thing.

And now Help Bot also Saying that Proigram not making any move?

Has the Program stopped making any Move? Then Tell me There may be
some bug that is causing such problem.

I played 3 games I never got such Bug. Still there is something wrong
somewhere that need to be fix.

Bye
Sanny




 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 21:14:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
On Feb 21, 10:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

> Another test I just ran. GC Beginner (white) vs. another program
> (black). After about 8 moves this position was reached with White
> (GC) to play.
>
> [FEN "r1bqk2r/p3p1b1/n1p2n1p/1p1p1p2/3P1Bp1/PNNQP3/1PP1BPPP/2KR3R w kq
> - 0 1"]
>
> (I could not get a move record very easily.)
>
> Unfortunately GC did not let me enter Black's last move, Bd7-c8,
> claiming that I moved "--e5" whatever that means (it showed no move on
> the board) and then decided it was GC's turn, and went into some sort
> of loop and never moved.

That sounds familiar. In my current game,
the GetClub program has frozen up, refusing
to move; I am very near to finishing it off, but
if it never moves, who knows? maybe Sanny
will forfeit me, or just delete the game and
thereby save his program from another
inevitable loss... .


> So I could not continue the game.
>
> I put the position in Rybka and Rybka thinks that White, after h2-h3,
> is up, evaluating +1.14. That's certainly a recognizable lead for GC
> Beginner, which plays much better than previously was the case.
>
> The opponent? It was the 1983 DOS version of Chess Partner, set at
> skill level 2 (out of 9) and run on the DOSBox emulator set at the
> default (rather slow) 3000 cycle speed. So we can possibly (although
> not with any hint of certainty) conclude that GC Beginner is a bit
> better than a 1983 program set to a low level running on a slow box.

Well, only eight moves is not a fair test;
you would need to play several games out
to the finish, alternating colors.

It just so happens that I can still recall
the strength of certain old chess programs
I once had. The worst of these was the
Boris Diplomat, which might think for hours
before coming up with the move 1. Na3!!
It might or might not make any given
recapture, but there was definitely no such
thing as "tactical search extensions".

Second weakest as I recall, was probably
the Atari 800's chess cartridge. It trounced
Boris but could not quite handle the other
programs, starting with the Atari 2600 game
machine's chess cartridge.

Above these were the Fidelity tabletop
models, which did in fact look deeper when
a check or capture was involved, thereby
putting themselves on a more level footing
with average human players. These models
also had a built-in openings book which got
them into open, tactical positions (such as
1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bc4 Bc5, for
instance). Trouble was, they would speed
up dramatically as the position became
simpler, making them rather weak in the
endgame.

The thing is, the people who keep coming
here to rgc to report their results with glee
are the ones who happen to have won, and
who are upset with Sanny for his behavior.

Yet the GetClub site indicates that many
players have lost-- where are those reports?
Where are those losers? And many of those
who come here to brag felt a need to play
anonymously; isn't that odd? LOL As if
they were afraid to play -- and possibly lose
-- under their regular identities, such as for
example Taylor Kingston or Philling Station
IMnes.

These many braggarts will report a freak
occurrence such as a piece-hang in under
ten moves by the GC program, but they
never will do an honest one; an honest
reporter might post here that he intends to
play ten games up, five with each color,
and invite others to watch. He could then
come back after the fact to report his score,
good or bad, and offer a reasonable guess
as to the program's USCF rating strength.

No, I think Sanny's behavior has forever
tilted the odds against honest reporting by
such as these; all we are likely to see is
more ridicule, based entirely on emotion,
on angst. But just as the GC program's
ratings swept upward when Sanny plugged
the hole whereby unscrupulous players
could simply never complete games they
were losing, so now we have mysterious
anonymous players who only will report
here *if* they win. Too bad I no longer
have any of those old machines, for I
think they would be very useful in figuring
out where GC stands on a table of sub-
2000 computer players.


-- help bot






 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 19:42:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
Another test I just ran. GC Beginner (white) vs. another program
(black). After about 8 moves this position was reached with White
(GC) to play.

[FEN "r1bqk2r/p3p1b1/n1p2n1p/1p1p1p2/3P1Bp1/PNNQP3/1PP1BPPP/2KR3R w kq
- 0 1"]

(I could not get a move record very easily.)

Unfortunately GC did not let me enter Black's last move, Bd7-c8,
claiming that I moved "--e5" whatever that means (it showed no move on
the board) and then decided it was GC's turn, and went into some sort
of loop and never moved. So I could not continue the game.

I put the position in Rybka and Rybka thinks that White, after h2-h3,
is up, evaluating +1.14. That's certainly a recognizable lead for GC
Beginner, which plays much better than previously was the case.

The opponent? It was the 1983 DOS version of Chess Partner, set at
skill level 2 (out of 9) and run on the DOSBox emulator set at the
default (rather slow) 3000 cycle speed. So we can possibly (although
not with any hint of certainty) conclude that GC Beginner is a bit
better than a 1983 program set to a low level running on a slow box.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 01:38:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
On Feb 21, 3:23 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:


> I only want that both get equal Processing Power. So that we can
> Compare their Evaluation Strength.

I think there is no comparison; the best we
can hope to do is to determine how much
*extra time* will compensate (if any will) for
Rybka's superior evaluation function.

In replaying many of the games between
Rybka and its commercial rivals, I noted
that there was a big difference in terms of
"understanding", not speed. The sole
exception was Zap Chess or Zappa, as
also indicated by the overall scores. So
it should come as no surprise that Rybka
can also out-understand the GC program,
not merely brute-force its way to wins
using greater processor speed (Fritz
suffices for that).


> Otherwise we are comparing Apples
> to Oranges. I am not so sure that Rybka can beat GetClub after giving
> equal footage. But we cant say anything unless the real Experiment is
> done by someone.

Well, we already know that Rybka is one
of the two strongest chess programs to ever
be developed -- not counting Deeper Blue.

And we also know that the players who
use some random chess program to play at
GetClub have been winning their games; a
few have managed perfect scores, after
contesting a score of games or more.


> > > Does anyone have Rybka on Single Core Machine? Then let me know the
> > > Games played between Normal Level and Rybka at 3-4 Seconds.
>
> > Please, give GC a fighting chance-- make that
> > the Master level. Use two separate machines,
> > so that neither program is slowed by the other.
>
> Incase you use Master Level It will just think 4 times more than
> Normal Level, So It will be able to compete with Rybka making moves at
> 16 secs on Single Core Desktop.

Here is what the old Fritz 5.32 can do at
16 seconds, from the starting position with
no openings book: the display shows an
average of 1,400,000 nodes per second,
which comes to approximately:

16 X 1400000 = 22+ million nodes examined
in just 16 seconds!


> > The single most glaring problem right now
> > is the King hiding in a corner in the endgame.
> > This alone -- if known to the opponents -- can
> > result in a massive drop in performance, in
> > ratings. It has been a deciding factor in
> > several of my games, for instance; I 'know" I
> > can win a drawn ending because of this, so
> > the pressure to succeed earlier is greatly
> > reduced.
>
> Yes King hiding problem needs to be seen But recently I found in a few
> games the King came out to fight. I found when playing with Rybka
> GetClub took the King out once. Still end game needs to be improved a
> lot. But currently I am focussing only on Middle Game. As I believe if
> you cannot win in Middle Game there is no point in teaching end game.

If the opening AND middle game are improved
to a certain point, the vast majority of human
opponents will never last to an endgame. Still,
there will always be those players who are
using another chess program, and thus, the
issue will not evaporate into thin air.


-- help bot


 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 00:23:26
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
> > In case Rybka is Run on a single Core Ordinary Desktop and Given 25
> > times less time than Normal Level then that will be a equal Match.
>
> > Say Normal Thinking in 1-2 min and Rybka on Ordinary Single Core
> > Machine at 3-4 seconds / Move. Then Both will be given equal
> > Processing.
>
> =A0 Okay, assuming the math were correct,
> Rybka would beat the GC program like
> carrots; this is because of its far superior
> evaluation function.

That is what I need to test As Processing Power is an External Matter
and Can be increased Once we know that It is evaluating Correctly.

> > I am confident Normal Level will give good Challenge to Rybka thinking
> > 3-4 seconds on Single Core Machine.
>
> =A0 No doubt you can find some way to make
> Rybka play poorly; but in a fair test, my
> guess is tha Rybka will beat GC like carrots;
> chop it like cabbage; defoliate it like agent
> orange; raze it like napalm; decimate it like
> a neutron bomb.

I only want that both get equal Processing Power. So that we can
Compare their Evaluation Strength. Otherwise we are comparing Apples
to Oranges. I am not so sure that Rybka can beat GetClub after giving
equal footage. But we cant say anything unless the real Experiment is
done by someone.

> > Does anyone have Rybka on Single Core Machine? Then let me know the
> > Games played between Normal Level and Rybka at 3-4 Seconds.
>
> =A0 Please, give GC a fighting chance-- make that
> the Master level. =A0Use two separate machines,
> so that neither program is slowed by the other.

Incase you use Master Level It will just think 4 times more than
Normal Level, So It will be able to compete with Rybka making moves at
16 secs on Single Core Desktop.

> =A0 The single most glaring problem right now
> is the King hiding in a corner in the endgame.
> This alone -- if known to the opponents -- can
> result in a massive drop in performance, in
> ratings. =A0It has been a deciding factor in
> several of my games, for instance; I 'know" I
> can win a drawn ending because of this, so
> the pressure to succeed earlier is greatly
> reduced.

Yes King hiding problem needs to be seen But recently I found in a few
games the King came out to fight. I found when playing with Rybka
GetClub took the King out once. Still end game needs to be improved a
lot. But currently I am focussing only on Middle Game. As I believe if
you cannot win in Middle Game there is no point in teaching end game.

Bye
Sanny

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




 
Date: 21 Feb 2008 00:02:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Rybka Won GetClub An Analysis.
On Feb 21, 2:38 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> So Rybka is getting Atleast 15* 10 = 150 times to 20*20 = 400 times
> more processing Power.
>
> So Roughly Rybka is getting 200-400 times more processing than
> GetClub.


That sounds about right. But the move-times
indicated in the games posted here mainly
reflect the slowness of the human operator,
since it was admitted that *all* of that time was
reported as Rybka's thinking time. In sum, we
the readers have no idea how much time was
actually spent by Rybka to ponder its moves.


> I found when Playing with Normal Level, Normal took 16 times more time
> than Rybka So we can say Rybka was processing 400/16 = 25 times more
> processing.
>
> With 25 Times more Processing It can easily beat the Normal Level.

Generally, they go by "nodes". If Rybka
indicates that it has examined roughly a
trillion nodes, then you would need to give
the GetClub applet sufficient time to do the
same (around six years, I expect).


> In case Rybka is Run on a single Core Ordinary Desktop and Given 25
> times less time than Normal Level then that will be a equal Match.
>
> Say Normal Thinking in 1-2 min and Rybka on Ordinary Single Core
> Machine at 3-4 seconds / Move. Then Both will be given equal
> Processing.

Okay, assuming the math were correct,
Rybka would beat the GC program like
carrots; this is because of its far superior
evaluation function.


> I am confident Normal Level will give good Challenge to Rybka thinking
> 3-4 seconds on Single Core Machine.

No doubt you can find some way to make
Rybka play poorly; but in a fair test, my
guess is tha Rybka will beat GC like carrots;
chop it like cabbage; defoliate it like agent
orange; raze it like napalm; decimate it like
a neutron bomb.


> Does anyone have Rybka on Single Core Machine? Then let me know the
> Games played between Normal Level and Rybka at 3-4 Seconds.

Please, give GC a fighting chance-- make that
the Master level. Use two separate machines,
so that neither program is slowed by the other.


> But before I invest Money in designing that version I want to be
> assured that GetClub Program is not playing any wrong move. If you
> find any mistake in its game do inform me.

The single most glaring problem right now
is the King hiding in a corner in the endgame.
This alone -- if known to the opponents -- can
result in a massive drop in performance, in
ratings. It has been a deciding factor in
several of my games, for instance; I 'know" I
can win a drawn ending because of this, so
the pressure to succeed earlier is greatly
reduced.


-- help bot