Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:31:31 07/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2002 at 19:05:33, martin fierz wrote: >On July 07, 2002 at 14:45:35, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: > >>On July 07, 2002 at 14:29:52, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2002 at 13:41:43, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >>> >>>This is by no means forced. And the explanation of Adams >>>is very clear: d5? is dubious as it opens up the position >>>for the white bishop. >> >>This evaluation is to general.Chess is a little bit complicater. >>You have to give variations to convince a good player. >> >>> >>>Besides, it is much better to look at the position and use >>>human chess knowledge instead of giving a mere computer line >>>including evaluation :-) Furthermore, in this position I put >>>much more trust in the super GM evaluation then in the >>>computer one. >> >>Chess is not a question of trust.It is a question of exact analysing. >>Next time please more content. > >what's wrong with a simple and clear explanation why ...d5 is a mistake? just >because it's simple doesnt mean it's wrong. and yes, when building opening >books, chess IS a matter of trust. and like jeroen, i would definitely trust a >2700+ player much rather than a guy who runs shredder for a few minutes... > >aloha > martin d5 seems to be wrong. I do not say it because of some 2700 analysis. The point is that it seems clear to me that white has the advantage after d5 and I do not see a reason to give white the advantage even if it is possible that black can find a defence to draw when black has better alternatives. You can also ask if 1.e4 b5 is wrong Maybe objectively black can get a draw with it but even in this case I think that 1...b5 is bad. 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.