Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:54:29 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 11:09:16, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 27, 2003 at 10:57:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On October 27, 2003 at 10:49:42, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On October 27, 2003 at 10:30:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 10:23:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Find the difference in book:
>>>>
>>>>[Event "23rd DOCC"]
>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"]
>>>>[Date "2003.10.18"]
>>>>[Round "01"]
>>>>White: NOOMEN BOOK (rebel)
>>>>[Black "Ant"]
>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>
>>>>1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Be7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6
>>>>8.Qe2 Bd7 9.O-O O-O 10.Ne5 Ba4 11.b3 Be8 12.Rd1 Qd6 13.a4 {DIAGRAM} a5
>>>>14.Qf3 c6 15.Qh3 Qd8 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bxh6 Bd7 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qg3+ 1-0
>>>>
>>>>[Event "23rd DOCC"]
>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"]
>>>>[Date "2003.10.26"]
>>>>[Round "10"]
>>>>White: NOOMEN BOOK (sjeng)
>>>>[Black "Ant"]
>>>>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>>>>
>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Bf5 7.Qf3 Bg6
>>>>8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxf6 gxf6 10.Nf3 Bb4 11.Rd1 Nd7 12.a3 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Bh5
>>>>14.Rb1 Bxf3 15.gxf3 b5 16.Bd3 Ke7 17.Rg1 Ke6 18.Rg3 h6 19.e4 a6 20.Kd2 Nb6
>>>>21.Re1 Kd6 22.Rg7 Ra7 23.Rg4 h5 24.Rf4 Nd7 25.Rg1 Rh6 26.Rg3 Nb6 27.Rg8 Ra8
>>>>28.Rxa8 Nxa8 29.Ke3 Nc7 30.Bc2 Ne6 31.Rh4 Rh8 32.Bd1 Ng7 33.Bb3 a5
>>>>34.Bc2 Rh6 35.Rh3 h4 36.Bd3 Rh5 37.Be2 Rh8 38.Bd1 a4 39.Be2 f5
>>>>40.e5+ Ke7 41.f4 Ne8 42.Kd2 Nc7 43.Kd3 Ne6 44.Rf3 Rg8 45.Kc2 Rg2 46.h3 Nf8
>>>>47.Bf1 Rg1 48.Bd3 Ke6 49.Kb2 Ng6 50.Bc2 Re1 51.Bb1 Re2+ 52.Bc2 f6
>>>>53.Kb1 Re1+ 54.Kb2 Ne7 55.Bb1 Rf1 56.Bd3 Rh1 57.Re3 Rg1 58.Bb1 Rf1
>>>>59.Rf3 Ng6 60.Bd3 Rd1 61.Kc2 Re1 62.Kb2 Rg1 63.Ka2 Rd1 64.Bc2 Rh1
>>>>65.Kb2 Ne7 66.Ka2 Rg1 67.Re3 Ng6 68.Rf3 Rc1 69.Kb2 Rg1 70.Ka2 Nh8
>>>>71.Bd3 Rd1 72.Bc2 Re1 73.Bd3 Nf7 74.Kb2 Rg1 75.Kc2 Ra1 76.Kb2 Rd1
>>>>77.Kc2 Rh1 78.Kb2 Nh8 79.Bc2 Rh2 80.Kc1 Rg2 81.Kd2 Rg1 82.Bd1 Ng6
>>>>83.Kc2 Re1 84.Re3 Rh1 85.Rf3 c5 86.Kd2 c4 87.exf6 Kxf6 88.Kc2 Nf8
>>>>89.Re3 Ne6 90.Bf3 Rh2 91.Bxd5 Nxf4 92.Bc6 Rxf2+ 93.Kc1 Nd3+ 94.Kd1 b4
>>>>95.cxb4 Ra2 96.b5 Rxa3 97.b6 Nf2+ 98.Ke2 Ra2+ 99.Kf1 Rb2 100.Bxa4 Ne4
>>>>101.Bc6 Ng3+ 102.Ke1 Rxb6 103.Bd5 Rb1+ 104.Kf2 Rf1+ 105.Kg2 Rd1
>>>>106.Bxc4 Rxd4 107.Re6+ Kg5 108.Ba6 Nh5 109.Re3 Rd2+ 110.Kg1 Nf4 111.Bf1 Kf6
>>>>112.Re8 Ng6 113.Rc8 f4 114.Bg2 Rb2 115.Be4 Ne7 116.Rh8 Ke5 117.Ba8 Ng6
>>>>118.Rh5+ Kd4 119.Rh6 Rb6 120.Kf2 Rf6 121.Bf3 Re6 122.Bd1 Ke5
>>>>123.Bc2 Ne7 124.Rh5+ Kd6 125.Rxh4 Ke5 126.Kf3 Rc6 127.Rh5+ Kd4 128.Be4 Re6
>>>>129.Ra5 Rh6 130.Kxf4 Rxh3 1/2-1/2
>>>>
>>>>No one can explain to me that 1.e4 in round 10 with the same book and similar
>>>>bookline would have won there.
>>>>
>>>>This where Noomen when he sees a line that can win potentially against a
>>>>program, he is taking 10 minutes effort to modify the books short before the
>>>>game, also against for example DIEP.
>>>>
>>>>DIEP-Sjeng
>>>>[Event "23rd DOCC"]
>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"]
>>>>[Date "2003.10.19"]
>>>>[Round "04"]
>>>>[White "Diep"]
>>>>[Black "Deep Sjeng"]
>>>>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>>>>[Opening "D07 QGD: Chigorin Defense"]
>>>>
>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Qd4 Ng6 6.e4 e5 7.Qxc4 Bd6
>>>>8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Bb5 Nf6 10.Nf3 O-O 11.Bxd7 Qxd7 12.Qxd7 Nxd7 13.Be3 Nb6
>>>>14.Nd2 f5 15.O-O Nf4 16.Rfd1 Rad8 17.Nb5 Na4 18.Rab1 a6 19.Nxd6 cxd6
>>>>20.Nf3 Rc8 21.Rd2 Rf6 22.g3 Nh5 23.exf5 Rxf5 {DIAGRAM} 24.Ng5 Nf6 25.Ne6 h6
>>>>26.h3 e4 27.Rbd1 Kf7 28.g4 Rxd5 29.Rxd5 Nxd5 30.Ng5+ hxg5 31.Rxd5 Nxb2
>>>>32.Rxd6 Nc4 33.Rd7+ Kg8 34.Bd4 Nd2 35.Bb2 Nf3+ 36.Kg2 b5 37.Rxg7+ Kf8
>>>>38.Ra7 Rc6 39.Ba3+ Kg8 40.Kg3 Nh4 41.Bb2 Rc2 42.Rg7+ Kf8 43.Rxg5 Rxb2
>>>>44.Kxh4 Rxf2 45.a3 Ra2 46.Rf5+ Kg7 47.Re5 Rxa3 48.Rxe4 a5 49.Re7+ Kf8
>>>>50.Rb7 Rb3 51.Kg5 a4 52.Kf6 Rf3+ 1/2-1/2
>>>>
>>>>Noomen sees this line against diep and loudly says he finds it a great line for
>>>>black, because white has played a nonsense move Qa4 (according to Noomen).
>>>>
>>>>He knows that i haven't modified book of course. Then some hours later there is
>>>>the game DIEP-Rebel.
>>>
>>>How can he know that you did not change the book?
>>
>>he was no further than 5 meters distance from me in those few hours.
>>
>>Mostly 1 or 2.
>>
>>>He also cannot know that your book is so small to have only 1.d4(you do not try
>>>to surprise him by 1.c4
>>
>>Checkout the openings diep played the last 4 tournaments the first move.
>>He is no fool in contradiction to you.
>
>I am not fool.
>You are fool if you play the same opening in every game in an important
>tournament.
Well-said. He chastised me for playing 1. e4 multiple times in an
event where I had a bad book line against 1. ... c5.
Of course, he can do the same thing but it is OK. And it is the fault
of the opponent for using a particular book that has good lines for a
particular opening.
It is the typical "excuse-making" time of the year. (note: this time of
year is _any_ time of the year after a computer chess tournament has been
held.)
>
><snipped>
>>>>So he plays same opening again, of course which is legal though i didn't find it
>>>>very sportive because he knew i had not modified book and he did effort short
>>>>before game to select the book he had delivered to Sjeng. I found that out of
>>>>course during the game.
>>>
>>>I see nothing wrong with what he did.
>>
>>That's because you still do not understand statistics despite studying it and
>>promoting onto them.
>>
>>If statistics say 1.e4 1-0
>>
>>so that is 100% score out of 1.e4 in a very easy way. Just 19 moves.
>
>Only if ant plays the same way.
>A week is a lot of time to prepare and I can be almost sure that ant planned to
>avoid losing in the same way.
>
>
>>
>>Then every mathematician except you should understand that you go a week later
>>against ANT again 1.e4
>>
>>Do you?
>
>No
>
>I do not know if sjeng has better chances with 1.e4
>The only way to know is by testing and I did not test it.
>
>>
>>If answer = no, then i do not see you as a mathematician, but some failed
>>researcher who is more stubborn than his toe.
>
>I have a ph.d from tel-aviv university that is practically in mathematics.
>
>Formally it is not in mathematics but it is only because of the fact that the
>proffesor my guide(simon litsyn) is from the faculty of engineering.
>
>Uri
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.