Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 10:11:40 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 09:47:38, Peter Berger wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 05:34:37, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On February 14, 2005 at 19:54:03, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On February 14, 2005 at 19:38:12, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>Not really. It is presmise already debated previously. It doesnt provide a new >>>>light about the thopic. Sorry. >>> >>>OK, one more (and no, I never claimed to have any special skills and ideas in >>>this area at all, that was you and Vincent :) ). One of the poor programs >>>provided with a book by me and playing with the black pieces will be out of book >>>after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 as happened for Crafty against Diep last year , >>>if I hadn't thought of this possibilty before - isn't that just awful ? I don't >>>think so, it's just logical. Control has become a major point IMHO , the engines >>>don't do too bad on their own. Of course it is better if you thought of some >>>potentially relevant line like this, but better nothing than random grandmaster >>>lines. Yes, you opposed this point of view multiple times before in discussions >>>with Uri , but I think you never managed to score. I'd accept a challenge btw - >>>over a good bottle of wine, champaigne, or so. >> >>Yes, this is an interesting point. A lot of "theory" is almost never played - >>everybody knows the refutations, so there are no games. A thorough book author >>will include these known refutations in his book. >> >>Your not being ready for 3. cxd5 goes in this category, since the move is a >>blunder. The problem with 3. cxd5 immediately is that after 3. .. exd5 4. Nc3 >>c6! black will take control of the b1-h7 diagonal with either 5. .. Bf5 or, if >>white tries 5. Qc2, 5. .. Ne7 followed by 6. .. Bf5. When white correctly delays >>cxd5, he will get this diagonal himself. >> >>For what it's worth, neither the Junior nor the Shredder book has this piece of >>knowledge. >> >>Vas > >Yes, it was clearly my failure to not think of this transposition, and I was >unhappy with it. But fixing it was easy as I simply had to add 3. ... exd 4. Nc3 >c6 :) > >From another post I just read I am not sure if you have understood me correctly. >My point is that in a situation not considered before the game I'd usually >prefer having no bookmove at all than some bookmove taken from a GM game >unchecked, so this is the lesser evil in my opinion. Thinking about it, this one >could be tested easily - would only take some time. Actually offhand I'd prefer the GM moves, maybe with some conditions. If a modern GM is still in his home preparation, or even just close to it, his move should be better. I guess you have to be careful though. As for testing - the difference here should be less than 20 rating points. Everyone is throwing around wild numbers ... 20 rating points == 60 extra points scored in a 1000-game match, that's too much here IMO. Vas > >Peter
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.