Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 13:21:21 09/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 1998 at 08:30:11, blass uri wrote: > >On September 21, 1998 at 08:06:11, Guido Schimmels wrote: > >> >>On September 20, 1998 at 09:53:20, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On September 20, 1998 at 05:10:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>>Ed - i do completely subscribe your position. >>>>>you try to fight for fair competition. >>>>>stand the pressure. >>>> >>>>Thanks for supporting my view. >>>> >>>>>don't let the others "convince" you with the means of their feet. >>>>>It is important that the ssdf recognize that they cannot do whatever they want, >>>>>especially when it comes to "special negotiations" and special conditions with >>>>>only ONE participant. >>>> >>>>I do not think this is the case. I think the SSDF handled in all fairness. They >>>>only took a wrong decision not realizing the disadvantages of that decision. >>>> >>>>>You always argued that there was a common sense, that all programmers >>>>>subscribed, to implement the auto232 driver into their programs, to support >>>>>this >>>>>driver. this common sense of all programmers was impolitely broken by matthias >>>>>decision not to support the autoplayer in public. >>>> >>>>I have read in CSS their motives, I believe them and understand better now. >>>>It's indeed not funny if your opening book is shot into pieces. >>> >>>I am not sure if I understand. >>>Do they say that the reason that they did a secret autoplayer is that they were >>>afraid of opening preperation in the next ssdf list?. >>> >>>I know that the powerbook of them is a bad book >>>and I think that this is the reason that they did better in the ssdf list when >>>they play many games against the same opponent because in this way they can >>>learn the good lines of the big book that they use. >> >>Chessbase say they have never spend precious computing time on outbooking >>the opponents and are not going to in the future. > >I do not think the idea of a good book must be to outbook the opponent >It can be to go to positions Fritz understands better. > >For example if a program has better results in positions when both sides castle >in opposite sides it should go for lines when both sides castle in opposite >sides. > >when I say bad book I do not mean to the fact they do not outplay the opponent >but to the fact they have bad lines in the book and >they lose not because of the engine but becasue of the book. > >you can see mclane's tournament and understand that it is better if they played >without book. > > > >> They think this is a complete >>waste of time, as it won't make the book any better in reality and therefore it >>doesn't add any value for the customers which is their main concern. They >>think Fritz has been highly underrated for a long time because the competition >>does outbooking excessively and they don't at all. > >I do not think that books are so important because I found that Junior5 could >win fritz5 with 1.f3. > >I did not finish the game with opposite sides but again white is not losing >(both sides evaluate the position after 40 moves as advantage for black when >black is Junior but both are wrong because the material advantage of Junior5(16 >bit) is not important because fritz5 has knight in the centre and the bishop of >Junior5 cannot move). > >I gave the sides 3 hours per 40 moves. > >Uri 1.f3, despite its reputation/ugly look, is a perfectly playable opponing. In fact, I don't think there exist any first move for White that lose by force... Serge Desmarais
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.