Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:46:57 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2003 at 11:27:27, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 28, 2003 at 09:54:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>And perhaps he simply thinks Sjeng plays better with 1. d4 than with 1. e4. > >You gave the answer yourself. Sometimes it makes sense to deviate from a master >plan. Also, I sincerely doubt it's possible to state for a fact that one opening >move is better than another. Adaptation to variants is the key. The reason for >chosing 1.d4 is probably little, but positive tournament experience against >tough opponents. Therefore it makes sense to explore other options when you have >the chance, ie. not too strong opposition and a not too important tournament. > >Just to make it clear. I'm not suggesting foul play against Deep Sjeng by >Noomen. However, I do find the approach suboptimal from a book author >perspective. > >Regards, >Mogens the matter is not whether sjeng is better in 1.d4 or 1.e4 only, the matter is that the 1.d4 book for sjeng is also very bad prepared. I can compare some lines it plays with 1.d4 with the Arturo book and see clearly that there a lot of lines played are not exactly very good. Then we see great lines played by the books used by rebel + tiger, which is very undeniable. So i'm not saying that what Sjeng used is worse than a random PGN book or whatever, but i'm noticing that what's used for Rebel + Tiger (2 completely different styles of engines) is very similar and much better than the total different book used for Sjeng. Though i commercially can understand the idea, from sportive viewpoint i find it very disgusting. VERY VERY VERY DISGUSTING, especially if you hear leaked out scores of dual sjeng when playing tiger (when it is equipped with the same book like sjeng).
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.