Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 16:06:51 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 18:46:46, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 I don't think you should be afraid. 500 CPUs is not enough -- you need reasonable good program to run on them. Thanks, Eugene
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.