Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:50:57 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 10:42:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. I didn't post anything to make you look ridiculous. You did that all by yourself. I simply pointed out that there is _no way_ to "guarantee_ a tournament will be won by a specific program. You said there was. I simply disagreed. If that makes you look ridiculous, then perhaps you should look in the mirror to see why that is... My age seems to be a real sticking point with you. Age == Experience. You should learn that. Or by the time you get older, the above won't be true... > >>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.