Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:40:21 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 10:23:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 08:01:43, Uri Blass wrote: > >I didn't say anything about ruffian. > >What i did want to discuss is why Tiger has a better book than Sjeng and that >from the same openings book creator. > >Sjeng at a dual K7 would have been a tournament winner for sure with the well >prepared Noomen books with 1.e4 etcetera. You need to stop making such ridiculous statements. In a tournament, there is no _for sure_ winner, ever. Not even between two programs, one running on a PIV/3ghz and one running on a pentium pro 200. There is no "sure thing" in chess. I've seen such "sure things" fall apart way too many times. "high probability" is not "sure thing". > >It only plays everywhere different openings than Tiger/Rebel. > >Sjeng is a very aggressive engine which is unmatched in mating the opponent >capabilities. Even where some say DIEP and The King are strong in king gambits, >the performance of Sjeng there is without discussions better in such lines. > >Yet it plays positional openings and endgame after endgame, where there is a >cool alternative as we can see from the Tiger + Rebel games. > >I am *sure* that Sjeng would have completely mated diep over the h-file for >example, directly playing either h6, and going for Kg7 soon. > >So why did Jeroen spoil this opportunity to produce a tournament winner? > >>On October 27, 2003 at 07:29:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 26, 2003 at 14:44:32, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 26, 2003 at 14:31:25, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>>> >>>>Hi Djordje, >>>> >>>>Of course you are right. But I am not complaining :-). I'll leave that to >>>>Vincent. I was in a good mood today anyway, as Tiger did some good work against >>>>Diep. Needless to say Vincent was relatively quiet during that game :-) >>> >>>replace the word 'tiger' by Noomen. >>> >>>Without Noomen book, Tiger would be a bad amateur. >> >>Nonsense. >> >>Ruffian showed that book is not very important if you have a strong engine >>and the only loss of it against xinix was because of some problems of the >>engine. >> >>Tiger could probably score slightly less with Ruffian's book but still better >>than the other amateurs(except isichess). >> >>I believe that it is simply a better program than Baron or Ant or nullmover or >>zzzz or gnuchess. >> >>These programs are most of the amateurs that compete and you cannot be called >>bad amateur when you are better than most of the amateurs. >> >>Uri
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.