Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 00:28:11 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 03:07:08, A. Steen wrote: >>You seem to be >>overly aggressive here for apparently being a supporter of EGTBs. > > >Follow the thread in chronological=posting sequence, and you will see I am (if >anything) the victim. Victim? That is interesting. It looks like you're another one of those attention seeking trollers to me. >>I believe in >>his main post he was saying EGTBs are helpful, which IS the case. You can twist >>this any which way you'd like it, but when you brush off the BS it all comes >>down to the fact of EGTBs being beneficial. > > >Often, very probably usually - but certainly not always. Can you please show me a position in an endgame where the EGTBs COULD be used, and when used are actually detrimental to performance (time to find the 'key' move)? I'm not saying such a position does not exist, I'm just saying I'd like to see it. >Referring back to my nomenclature, Type (b) finds are often superior as they are >cheaper in time terms. Types (c) and (d) can be dangerous, but only if they >result in shuffling cycles as demonstrated in the subsequent example the OP >provided. > > > >>Also, to your comment about the move being as fast as the EGTB access itself. >>What you left out is that the EGTB move would have been played instantly, > > >You must be one of these "troll" types the OP referred to, right? I further enlighten you the main point, and I am a troll? You must be smoking the "good" stuff, eh? >Cacheing is thus only a small benefit, as successor EGTBs (sometimes, when >post-promotion as opposed to post-capture, about as large) also have to be >stored. That is "caching", by the way. >Can I have some? I think you've had too much already ;)
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.