Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:07:27 08/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2002 at 14:57:07, Joachim Rang wrote: >On August 31, 2002 at 10:27:19, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 31, 2002 at 09:56:52, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>nice test, but 20 games say nothing. Play at least 100 or 200 games. Then on can >>>estimates the influence of book. >> >>1)The result is 12-7 if you adjudicate >>loss on time correctly. >> >>2)It is more easy to suggest other to play 100 or 200 >>games. >> > >you are right ;-) > > >>From looking in the games I do not consider book as >>very important. >> >>My opinion is that if book could beat no book only 12-7 then book is expected >>to get even worse result against a small book only to get >>the opponent out of book. > >where is the logic? Sorry i can't find the logic in this assumption. If you have >a small book only to get the opponent out of book, the chances should be equal >if you succeed and better for the bookengine if not. I believe that a small book to get the opponent out of book can be better than no book because it can save falling into traps and the price of a small disadvantage with black is minimal. 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.