Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:42:05 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 10:40:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: I asked question why noomen plays 1.d4 for Sjeng and 1.e4 with Rebel despite already proof in round 1 that 1.e4 works better for such engines. You just posted here to make me ridicoulous. However you aren't you are making an old idiot out of yourself by posting it like this. >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.