Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:05 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 13:33:25, Jeroen Noomen wrote:
>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
>
>
You should have noticed the following by now:
(1) if Vincent can't do it, it is _impossible_.
(2) if someone does it, in spite of (1) above, then they cheated.
(3) if Vincent can't understand it, it is "hell slow and inefficient" and
bears no serious consideration.
(4) if someone does something in spite of (3), then they cheated.
(5) if Vincent loses a game, it is _never_ because his program plays
badly. It is always the opponent's book, his bad book, he couldn't search
deep enough to reach his mythical tactical barrier, or most any other excuse
that he can dream up. When I lose, I just get beat, and try to get better.
When he loses, he tries to get "even" by bad-mouthing the opponent. IE see
his comments about CT being a "low amateur" without a good book. What a
crock.
The best advice to remember is that his comments are meaningless, his
rants are not taken seriously, and therefore there's nothing he can say or
do that will make others think less of you. He looks ridiculous every time
he does this. He will disappear for a few weeks. Then come back and start
the cycle over again. Progress can be made in CC without him, or in spite
of him, but only if someone wants to continue. I hope you don't disappear
and let his volume override your wisdom...
That would be a shame...
Don't let this be a case of where zero knowledge trumps significant knowledge.
He has no credibility so he can't possibly do you any harm in anyone's eyes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>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.