Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 15:22:36 11/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
Marc, before you leave the premises - if you do, we have to respect that- quickly some questions. A few days ago (19/11) you wrote a post concerning a novelty in the Caro-Kann. I cut and pasted that game into Chessbase and had a look at it, quite a bit intrigued by the meaning. However I wasn't able to make out what you meant with it, so I let it rest for a while. You talk about a novelty. As far as I could see you marked one move as a novelty, namely in the analysis itself i.e. 14.g2-g4 from the position r1b2rk1/p1q2pp1/1ppbpn1p/8/3P4/3B1N2/PPPBQPPP/2KR3R w - - 0 14 with the comment: "My move according (to) the Qb6*) variation(:) the plan to play later on g6 and Knh4 (is that Nh4?) again this position is winning. h4 is just 1 move to slow" *(that is 12...Qb6 in the position r1b2rk1/pp3pp1/1qpbpn1p/8/3P4/3B1N2/PPPBQPPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 13 - rem Jeroen) Between brackets are my remarks. The game ended in a win for white. In the header you just stated that you played white and "black was black". Maybe it was just an analysis- the gamescore contains some reference to computer analysis and evaluation mixed with yours. My questions are: 1. is 14.g2-g4 the novelty you're aiming at in the header of your posting? 2. Why do you use the words "winning again"? Compared to which situation exactly? 3. is this a game actually played between you and a computer, or you and a human? 4. in your analysis, is this move an improvement for specific (anti-)computerplay or in general? 5. Are the other opening books by programs which handle this situation wrong in your opinion? How is your assessment of those traditional answers, and how do you value this move in term of improvement? Very interested. Thanks maybe for your reaction. Jeroen ;-}
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.