Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 20:31:32 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2005 at 19:22:11, Peter Berger wrote: >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. For you, it can "quite interesting". For me, it is meaningless. I don't criticize if Jeroen Noomen chose a wrong election of book. Or also, if he has some wonderful refutation that did not happen. > >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? > It doesn't make sense to justify the bad decision of a game. The Jeroen Noomen's message reflects that. If I had done ....., the result would have been different. I don't know if Rb1 or other move was decisive. I will let you investigate by yourself. >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 .. > False asumption. I would try to analyze by myself but not publishing in a Forum justifying my bad election of certain line. This doesn't have to with Match, Engineering or other discipline. Just strategy and common sense. >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. > You are giving me the reason. You are not declaring an extensive justification of your lost as I don't give excuses for bad decisions in the opening election. That the official Tournaments offer the challenge of who is better prepared. >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.