Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 14:46:53 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 17:33:21, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 09, 2001 at 17:04:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>In other words, the is _no_ way this can ever be proved, correct? Which does >>tend to make arguments futile... > >Yes ;) That is my frustration. > >At least 2 people here have said they wanted a position where DB >found something the current comps cannot find before they could >ever be conviced it was better than current comps. > >If you find one, they are going to argue and argue that it's not >a valid one for God knows what reasons and that you need to find >another. > >Lather. Rinse. Repeat. > >-- >GCP Come on, that's ridiculous. Uri plays correspondence chess at a very high level using programs, he's not just setting them up, letting them run, then sending off their moves. I also was not born yesterday and am sufficiently familiar with the DT/DB team's publications to understand their extension policy. I don't think it is the case that Uri and I (or even Amir) are unwilling to accept concrete analysis that demonstrates a large advantage. The Hiarcs analysis you mentioned sounds interesting -- if it's coming up with +1.7 after 32.Bg5, that sounds quite promising for your viewpoint. Of course, I want to see the variation! :-) But generally speaking, +1.7 is indicative of a large advantage of the sort that the half-pawn (or after Roy Eassa's 32...Kf8!, three-quarter pawn) advantage I was seeing in the other line profferred couldn't substantiate. Dave
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.