Author: Peter Berger
Date: 16:22:11 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
This "general all-out battle of opening authors" is interesting only because it means that some people involved decided to provide some information on how they work, or should this be called vague hints? Still quite interesting. Yours is the first message I can't make *any* sense of. Diep won the game, so you did the right thing per default. Full stop. Really, that's what this game is all about :) . In case Fruit had played Kb1 it might have won instead - yeah right, what else is new ;) ? Maybe it is even true, but does it matter? Now if you had lost, it would make sense to look for explanations of course. This is not maths - it is more like engineering IMHO - whatever works .. I don't play in your league, but just an example of what I mean. Fruit-Crafty, WCCC 2005, a book loss for poor Crafty to some extent. Virtually everything I read about it was complete bullshit objectively IMHO. "After the silly g5 Crafty was punished", or something like that. I don't buy that at all. But it is besides the point to some extent. Something was wrong, because - Crafty *lost* in the early middlegame, it's as simple as that. The engine *as are* are a given for a book author. I personally think Fruit actually refuted 5. ... Bc5 over the board and out of book , a well-known line up to that point. Whatever works ;) - kudos to Pr. Dr. Marc for superior preparation :) . No joking here btw, just smiles, I am actually very serious about it and believe it is the only approach that makes sense objectively. Cheers, 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.