Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 15:46:46 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 18:20:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Bob, I had a nightmare last night, I was in Graz visiting the tournament, Vince became world champion with his 500 processors. Imagine the horror for CCC, "I am the Best, I am the Greatest" all over........ in the footsteps of MA. My best, Ed
This page took 0.03 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.