Author: blass uri
Date: 14:24:12 05/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2000 at 15:29:44, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 30, 2000 at 14:22:55, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On May 30, 2000 at 13:49:25, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>Go right ahead.
>>>
>>>Every chess opening might be refuted one day. Every refutation might have
>>>another refutation answer discovered. Maybe the optimal opening is 1. f4 (for
>>>all we really know).
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as a proof of correctness unless it leads to irrefutable
>>>checkmate. You won't be able to accomplish this for the Halloween attack.
>>>Therefore, it is only one of the quintillions of possibly viable openings.
>>
>>I can be practically sure about some things without a proof.
>>
>>I am sure that 1.e4 Nf6 2.Qh5 is a wrong sacrifice and that black is winning
>>inspite of the fact that you cannot prove a forced mate.
>>
>>I am sure about it more than I am sure about long proofs in mathematics because
>>they may be wrong because of a mistake in the proof.
>
>True enough. That's why they publish books like ECO. But what was once thought
>sound many years ago sometimes becomes refuted. I was not talking about +500
>centipawn or more clear evaluations [but computers and even GM's can surely be
>wrong on these also]. I think the more polar the score, the more *probable* the
>outcome can be determined. But there are no lead pipe cinches. I think
>positions like the above are quickly abandoned {probably some of these are
>wrong!} and so we don't even bother asking about them.
>
>But for some gambit opening where the deep computer eval shows -150 or worse or
>for some positional sacrifices, I think these are very unclear (but by no means
>certain in any direction).
I think that good players can be practically certain about some things.
There are cases with no material loss that it is clear that a move is not good.
The question is not the material advantage.
I can suspect that a queen sacrifice may be good even if I see only a positional
advnatage when I can be sure that a move that sacrifices nothing is not good for
positional reasons.
Here is an example when it is clear for me that a move is not good inspite of
the fact that there is no sacrifice:
It is clear for me that 1.e4 f6 is not a good move.
>
>I also think that the vast majority of sound openings remain undiscovered.
I believe that there are many cases when people are practically sure that an
opening is unsound and not only believe that it is unsound.
There are cases when openings that are considered unsound will be discovered to
be sound but I believe that the intelligent player can say in these case only
that he believes that it is unsound when in other cases like 1.e4 f6 he will say
that he is sure that it is unsound and cases when he is wrong about cases when
he is sure will be very rare(less than 1 out of 1000000).
Uri
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.