Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 19:39:19 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 21:32:59, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 20:21:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 27, 2003 at 19:16:38, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>You are showing what you are yourself here very clearly. >> >>My question to Noomen was very clearly sealed in a dry question: >> >>"why do you play 1.e4 with years of preparation for Rebel + Tiger >>and not with Sjeng" > >If you let your bookmaker choose what openings to play with Diep, then why not >let Jeroen decide what openings to play with Sjeng? Why question his judgment? The facts are too clear to ignore. First tournament Sjeng played with a noomen book i thought: "oh give him time to make a book for it". But if 2 out of 3 programs play 1.e4 (with a small 1.c4 side step for Tiger) then adding a 3d one should be pretty easy, especially knowing how quickly amateurs get beaten by 1.e4 using his book. Then knowing how Jeroen usually is talking about how he takes decisions in tournaments, he should have drawn the same conclusion logically about Sjeng. Did he ever test Sjeng with the books he prepared for Rebel + Tiger, that would be my second question. If so what was the score Sjeng dual versus Tiger and Sjeng dual versus Rebel using *that* book? >More importantly, why don't you focus instead on your own engine/book, than on >everyone else's? I am sure that you apply to yourself what you suggest to others...
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.