Author: Tina Long
Date: 15:22:31 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 12:16:10, Roy Eassa wrote: >On November 07, 2001 at 18:50:31, Tina Long wrote: > >>I still believe that seeing what the top players have played, and reading their >>reasons and analysis in books is FAR better than "infinite analysis" by a >>current chess program. > > >I know you are indirectly referring to Uri, who thinks computers are better. Hi Roy, NO NO NO, I was not Referring to Uri at all, I have always (or maybe it is mostly because I don't follow them all through) had great respect for Uri's analysis & arguments. >I'm kind of in the middle. I think top GMs are better most of the time, but >occasionally the computer can find something that GMs have overlooked or >underestimated. The best of all, of course, is a top GM working WITH a >computer. I agree with what you say absolutely, that is precisely where I stand. I was referring only to the original poster Sergei Smith who in http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?195519 said "The statistically best line in infinity analysis is Najdorf, withou doubt. Now my PC is at move 8." With his posts on the Najdorf Sergei is showing youthfull inexperience & nievity concerning opening theory. But I gretly applaud his mission & his dedication. I look forward to seeing his posts as his experience & therefore knowledge grows. Unfortunately I am seperatly arguing with him about software Piracy, & I hope this doesn't sway his attitude against me in discussing his Narjdorf exercise. Regards Tina Long
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.