Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 17:50:14 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 19:26:12, Andrew Dados wrote: >On November 08, 2001 at 10:58:29, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On November 08, 2001 at 10:44:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2001 at 10:07:06, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>What part of: Can anyone here beat a comp at 40/120 without using anticomp >>>>strategies on fast hardware, don't you understand?? >>> >>>The "without using anticomp strategies" part is unclear, silly and therefore >>>nonsensical. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mogens >> >>Well just because you don't understand it, does not make it silly. >> >>Regards >>Jonas > >Well.. to me it is silly as well. Some will call 1.a3 'anti-comp'; some will >call king-side attack anti-comp, some will call zugzwang positions anti-comp. > >Andrew If you where to take the challenge (hypothetically of course since Jose C already stepped up to the plate) and 1.a3 would be your way of playing "anti comp" then it would be your job to avoid such play, since then it would be concidered "anti comp" (by your own definition) We clearly need some more discussions on what is to be considered "anti comp" So far the best way i can discribe it, from all the responses to my post, would be that it is indeed a very individual matter. Regards Jonas
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.