Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:07:00 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2003 at 14:55:56, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On October 28, 2003 at 13:32:27, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 28, 2003 at 12:43:27, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>If Jeroen wrote three different books, and by different I mean _no common
>>lines_ then I would not object. But I would bet that 90% of all 3 books is
>>the same, if not 100%. And that is the part I don't like. Yes, his books
>>are _always_ good. But do I _really_ have to face his book three (or more
>>times if they add more engines) in the _same_ event?
>>
>>I think that was the main point Bruce made the last time this came up.
>
>
>I think Bruce would have objected! After all, it's not like Bruce is allowed to
>enter three different programs that he wrote.
>
>Dave
As I said, that was the point Bruce made the last time this came up. He
objected, as did I.
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.