Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:59:52 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 20:42:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 12:57:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 27, 2003 at 11:04:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2003 at 10:57:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>Again you fail your exam as statistical mathematician. >>> >>>Please apply statistics onto next. >>> >>>tested games: 100000 >>> >>>Best opening: 1.e4 >>> >>>opening played by Jeroen for Tiger + Rebel: 1.e4 >>> >>>Opening played by Sjeng : 1.d4 >>> >>>Sjeng is more aggressive and has less positional knowledge than the above 2 >>>engines. >>> >>>What does your mathematical insight say to you here? >> >>Mine says to play the opening I expect to do best with. I've played 1. d4 >>in _many_ tournaments to avoid prepared lines in response to 1. e4. > >However the Noomen book is very well prepared for 1.e4 see the quick wins that >happen with them and the great positions, versus the drawish positions that get >accomplished with the bad prepared 1.d4 lines. > >What do you think? I think exactly what I said previously. Jeroen chose to have it play 1. d4. There _must_ be a reason. I assume it has to do with results with e4 vs d4 that he has seen. I don't assume it was to make sjeng have a worse result. Otherwise wouldn't GCP be the one that was complaining and making excuses here? He hasn't said a word about the book. I find it hard to believe that Jeroen would even _consider_ doing such a thing, much less actually doing it. > >>Mine does not say to wildly speculate since I know that programs are different. >>And they will likely handle different openings better depending on the program. >>Why does it matter what someone _else_ chooses to play in their book? Isn't > >I noticed a difference and like to discuss it here. I love speculations but in >this subject i prefer others to post speculations. You are the only one speculating. Jeroen is the only one that knows what went on in the opening book preparation. His explanation seems rational and honest. Yours seems speculative and hurtful. > >What are your speculations? That he thought that 1. d4 was better for Sjeng. > >>that beyond your control and/or interest? Should not you spend more time >>worrying about what _you_ are going to play or why _your program_ lost games, >>rather than wondering about what books were used by which opponents and why? > >I worry about that bigtime and i am working to improve it there. It doesn't show, based on the amount of time you spend accusing others of misdeeds, vs the amount of time you spend trying to fix your program's shortcomings. You spend way more time knocking others than is reasonable.
This page took 0 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.