Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 21:01:26 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 22:39:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 21:32:59, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On October 27, 2003 at 20:21:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:16:38, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>You are showing what you are yourself here very clearly. >>> >>>My question to Noomen was very clearly sealed in a dry question: >>> >>>"why do you play 1.e4 with years of preparation for Rebel + Tiger >>>and not with Sjeng" >> >>If you let your bookmaker choose what openings to play with Diep, then why not >>let Jeroen decide what openings to play with Sjeng? Why question his judgment? > >The facts are too clear to ignore. > >First tournament Sjeng played with a noomen book i thought: "oh give him time to >make a book for it". > >But if 2 out of 3 programs play 1.e4 (with a small 1.c4 side step for Tiger) >then adding a 3d one should be pretty easy, especially knowing how quickly >amateurs get beaten by 1.e4 using his book. > >Then knowing how Jeroen usually is talking about how he takes decisions in >tournaments, he should have drawn the same conclusion logically about Sjeng. So, maybe he screwed up. Big deal. The question remains why you are so worked up about it. >Did he ever test Sjeng with the books he prepared for Rebel + Tiger, that would >be my second question. > >If so what was the score Sjeng dual versus Tiger and Sjeng dual versus Rebel >using *that* book? > >>More importantly, why don't you focus instead on your own engine/book, than on >>everyone else's? > >I am sure that you apply to yourself what you suggest to others... I don't continually blame others for my own failures, so I have no need to do so.
This page took 0.02 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.