Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 10:33:25 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 10:30:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
Big mouth Vincent strikes again: 'Jeroen Noomen deliberately played weaker lines
for Sjeng, to give Tiger and Rebel the advantage'. Another of your paranoid
stories? Get a life! I am really getting fed up with you.
Concerning 1.d4 for Sjeng:
1. With 1.d4 Sjeng beat Fritz in Leiden (May 2003 tournament)
2. With 1.d4 Sjeng got a winning position against Shredder in Leiden (May 2003).
3. With 1.d4 Sjeng won against The King in the Dutch open 2003.
I have all the statistics of Sjeng's games (and I can assure you that Sjeng
plays well with 1. d4) and have done my best for Gian-Carlo in Leiden this year.
We both now it will take time to optimise the book for Sjeng, this cannot be
done in a period of some weeks. Somehow Sjeng was unlucky with some opening
lines, because I didn't anticipate the line coming.
If you are frustrated by Diep's play, blame yourself. If you are frustrated by
the fact that opponents take advantage of your small book: blame your book
author or yourself. But self criticism seems not a word that is in your
dictionary. Furthermore, you seems to look for scapegoats everywhere, apparently
to hide the fact that Diep played a lousy tournament.
I have one serious tip for you: go to visit some doctor and try to do something
about your fears. Instead of attacking everyone and everybody with your paranoid
ideas.
Jeroen
>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.
>
>Before the game, noomen goes find the book that he used for Sjeng and does all
>kind of stuff that i cannot see of course but it has to do with book issues.
>
>Only when games start then he copies the game, knowing i have not changed the
>book:
>
>[Event "23rd DOCC"]
>[Site "Leiden NED"]
>[Date "2003.10.19"]
>[Round "06"]
>[White "Diep"]
>[Black "Rebel"]
>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>
>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 Nf4
>14.Bxf4 exf4 15.Nd4 Be5 16.O-O-O Rae8 17.Rhe1 a6 18.Kc2 g6 19.Nce2 Re7
>20.f3 Rfe8 21.Rg1 Bd6 22.Rgf1 h5 23.Nc1 f5 24.exf5 Nb6 25.Ne6 gxf5
>26.Kb1 Nc4 27.Rh1 Ne3 28.Rd2 c6 29.Nd3 Nxd5 30.Nec5 b6 31.Na4 Re2
>32.Kc1 Kh7 33.Rhd1 R2e6 34.Kb1 Bf8 35.Rg1 Bg7 36.Rgd1 a5 37.Kc1 Bd4
>38.Kb1 c5 39.Nc1 Ne3 40.Rh1 b5 41.Nc3 Nc4 42.Rc2 Bxc3 43.Rxc3 Rg6
>44.Rg1 Nd2+ 45.Kc2 b4 46.Rd3 Nc4 47.Rd7+ Kh6 48.Kb3 Nb6 49.Rc7 c4+
>50.Kc2 Nd5 51.Rc5 Ne3+ 52.Kb1 a4 53.Ne2 Rxg2 54.Rc6+ Kg5 55.Rh1 h4
>56.Nd4 a3 57.bxa3 bxa3 58.Ne6+ Rxe6 59.Rxe6 Nd5 60.Re8 {DIAGRAM} Rb2+
>61.Kc1 Nb4 62.Rg1+ Kf6 63.Rgg8 Nxa2+ 64.Kd1 Nc3+ 65.Ke1 a2 1/2-1/2
>
>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.
>
>Rebel plays other move, diep reacts wrong and gets lost endgame. Then because of
>bugs in Rebel it still blows it.
>
>So Noomen copies game against diep when he guesses it can be advantage for
>Rebel.
>
>When however Sjeng can profit in the same way it gets not done.
>
>Why?
>
>>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.
>>
>>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 0.01 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.