Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 11:54:12 02/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2002 at 12:57:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 20, 2002 at 12:12:55, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>Weak? I think Van Reek is a little bit stronger than you or I > > >1738 7089269 Reek G.C.P. v/d M 1839 5* > >There is no active playing >Van Reek anymore. He would get completely crushed by me. > >Also remember he is running from room to room. So he's at the game >then he writes down on a paper the move and runs to his own room >where he has internet. There he enters the move in fritz5.32 and >based upon what he sees on a small display of 5x5 CM he concludes >a move to be bad or wrong. > >So > a) he doesn't take any tactical threats into account. Being 60 nearly > now it's no fun to see tactics > b) he concludes whether a move is good or bad based upon what fritz5.32 > at his laptop said. > c) i was previous year there during the match and this guy can't play > chess anymore. I was a live witness of how he is analysing. > "oh this move sucks 3 pawns difference!" > >He is doing that based upon a few seconds of analysis of fritz5.32 at >his laptop. I then suggested to give it a bit more time to get the score >up but he was too stubborn to do that! > >The reason why the internet delay is not so fast is because he wants >to add 'serious analysis' first to the game before posting it online. > >This is the only reason the match is not directly live but 'semi live'. > >Complete nonsense. > >So because one guy who didn't play a single 40 in 2 game for like 20 >years now wants to add some fritz5.32 analysis, about 500 persons >who would love to follow it live need to wait. > >When i criticized this previous year he was getting real pissed: "how >can i put it online without proper analysis?" > >This guy is impossible. > >Best regards, >Vincent I think I do have to standup for my felow analyzer here. Even if he was the best analyzer or problemist of the world you still would complain. And a strong analyzer or problemist beats a super super GM big time for this kind of events! And yes if he would post his analyses and did not check if his ideas where corect he would like a fool or not? (But he should only use a program to check HIS IDEA! And not only folowing the mainlines givven by a program. Then I agree that the analyses are not of much use.) Just take a look at Hubner's or Svidler's analyses in depth. Hubner used the half tournament book of Tilburg 1981 to write his analyses (Which where uncorect.) Svidler is even worse. And if no coments where made you would complain too. Maybe give some quick impresions over the positions for the sake of amusement. (Giving coment over openlines pawnstructure kingsafety and so on. And not giving moves) And post serious analyzes later could be the Third option. And I think the best. Regards Marc van Hal
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.