Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 09:57:08 10/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2000 at 16:53:03, Christophe Theron wrote: Hi Bas, >>It depends on you definition if you call that line a killerline. My definition >>of a killer line happens to be exactly the one that Ed Schroeder has, isn't that >>a coincidence? In my book a line is a killerline if it contains several >>non-theory moves that are only meant to trap the opponent engine. Of course you >>CAN call such moves "novelties". The game Tiger-Tao WAS theory. Not played in games, but the moves up to Qd4! can be found in many theoretical works. I believe it is even an old analysis by Paul Keres. Seems that even the 'old' masters are pretty much right with their evaluation :-)) So I disagree this is a non-theoretical line. Besides, if you had many games in your book that have been played, Tao would have avoided this mistake. Since Tao was already out of book after 5. Nd5! Anyway, this is the difference between books based on games and my books: I spent a lot of effort to implement novelties, analysis and improvements on grandmaster games. This is a tough job, I can tell you. For me it is fun to do. See for example my Rb1! novelty in the game Tiger vs. Junior at the WCCC in London. Greetings, 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.