Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 09:43:27 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2003 at 10:55:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 28, 2003 at 10:38:04, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>
>>On October 28, 2003 at 09:42:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No. If you look at _my_ history with Cray Blitz you will see that I
>>>discovered that we played better with 1. d4 as white. We had some
>>>reasonable positional knowledge that helped in the more strategic
>>>openings that arise from 1. d4. I didn't do it because I thought I
>>>was hurting my chances of winning... I did it because I thought it
>>>_helped_.
>>>
>>>I assume Jeroen did the same thing. Perhaps some of his 1. e4 lines
>>>led Sjeng into positions it didn't like or understand or play very well.
>>>It would be natural to try to avoid them.
>>>
>>>I have this horrible tendency to believe that most people do their
>>>very best when helping others. I can't imagine him intentionally
>>>preparing a book for Sjeng that would decrease its chances of winning.
>>>
>>>Now if you want to argue that one book author should not be allowed to
>>>prepare an opening book for three different programs, there I agree 100%.
>>>I can't contribute significant pieces of code to three different programs
>>>and have them all play in ICCA events. I don't see why someone can
>>>contribute three significant opening books (which can go as deep as 20 moves
>>>in a game that may only last 40 moves). The ICCA is completely out of
>>>touch with common sense here, mainly because of $$$ I assume.
>>>
>>>What is happening is wrong. But it isn't wrong because Jeroen is trying to
>>>make Sjeng lose. It is wrong because one person is helping _three_ programs
>>>to win. That is bogus. The ICCA _knows_ it is bogus. But they let it
>>>continue, for reasons only they have.
>>
>>
>>Yes. What you said makes perfect sense. I had problems understanding that: I
>>had always thought of Jeroen as the Rebel book author -- now you see him as the
>>Tiger and Deep Sjeng book author as well. I am not saying that it is dishonest
>>on his part -- but it definitely puts him in a split personality kind of
>>position. Furthermore, I believe that he simply can't be as successful as he
>>might be creating only one book.
>>
>>Strange in my opinion. And difficult to understand.
>>
>>Djordje
>
>I don't think it has a thing to do with honesty. I'd never question
>Jeroen's honesty at all.
>
>It does have a lot to do with fairness. Bruce Moreland summed it up
>best: "why do I have to face the _same_ outstanding book twice in the
>same tournament when I don't ever face the same _program_ twice?"
>
>That's a good point. A good book can be a significant advantage. There
>are complaints if an amateur tries to use a commercial program's opening
>book. Why not if two different commercial entries try to use the same
>book?
Of course not, Bob. Jeroen's honesty was never an issue. The guy's just OK and
nice to talk to. He's always contributed sensible stuff to the forum. It is a
question of: a. his ability to act as a different book maker for different
engines ("the split personality chess book maker syndrome"), and b. fairness to
other participants in a chess event (th point you made). It was not easy to
wiggle out of Jeroen's traps and tricks in Leiden, and I had luck (got 2/3
against his books, with a little luck on my side). But his books are, together
with Alex Kure's, worth perhaps 30-50 ELO for an engine.
Djordje
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.