Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 01:16:06 10/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 2003 at 08:01:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >About option 1 i can clearly explain a number of things having gained some >experience there: > > 1a) i had to write a lot of new knowledge which wasn't in diep before and > certain bugfixes still are happening. See game DIEP-Tiger > > 1b) it takes at least 3 years to make a good 1.d4 book That sounds credible for a proper basis. Though it obviously isn't a static process. > 1c) i personally doubt Sjeng will ever play 1.d4 well because of lacking > knowledge which i can enter without problems in DIEP (and even then > have problems tuning it) That is an opinion. > 1d) Consider that Rebel is more suited towards 1.d4 than Sjeng, so why > choose Sjeng? Rebel uses the same stuff like Tiger I suspect that it is a solid beginning, see your own 1e. > 1e) Theory in 1.e4 is moving faster than 1.d4, so for those who already > keep up to date with 1.e4, they can beat 'amateurs' pretty easily after > having gained so much experience and especially already having prepared > all the other lines. A good rule of thumb is d4 (and maybe c4) against professionals and e4 against amateurs. Especially if you knowledgable on chess theory. >Jeroen already has shown he has a pragmatic approach towards using the first >move. Remember that he has tried temporarily 1.c4 with Tiger a few tournaments. >I would suggest using the same approach here. Thank you for adhering to my suggestion instead of the more conspiracy orientated, ie. using "smaller" tournaments for experimentation. Regards, Mogens
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.