Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 19:58:37 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 20:43:30, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 06, 2002 at 19:41:06, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>
>>>I said that I guess that it can find the correct move in 90% of the cases.
>>>It does not mean that it is going to play correct moves in the opening in 90% of
>>>the games.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, it can play correctly the main lines of the Dutch, Budapest, Wolga, Queens
>>Gambit, QGA, Ruy Lopez, Italian, French, Sicilian Paulsen and about 450
>>openings.
>
>It is my last post in this thread.
>I did not say it.
>
>playing correctly in 90% of the cases mean 90% of the moves that it plays are
>correct.
>
>If it play correctly the first 9 moves and the 10th move is wrong then it mean
>that it played correctly in 90% of the cases.
>
>>
>>You don´t know anything about openings theory.
>>
>>What I Conclude about your declarations.
>>
>>Your declarations corresponds to a beginner about 1100 Elo.
>
>I am not going to continue to argue with people who insult me.
>
Hello Uri:
The problem is you argue as if I knew a coin of opening theory after 15 years of
active chess and about 1 year of experience with opening books for engines.
Because I have had to face the practical chess in the both areas human and
computer, I don{t base my declarations in suppositions.
They are there and additionally, I run a Match that doesn't serve for you in any
sense. You haven{t run any match that proves or refute the topic of the Book
against No Book.
Only general declarations but I haven't a specific argument based on results.
I would like to think all the things that I have declared here are wrong and
your asseverations are correct completely. In this sense, I would close my mouth
for good while. The problem is you haven{t prove anything here.
General declaration like "The book is not important" "My chess programs can
solve the 90% of opening without almost knowledge" are fullful of sense.
Tell me really, I must be serious or you are kidding me a lot. :))
I don't feel insulted if somebody proves that I play the rook endgame like a
baby.
Please argue things that we can debate in good sense here. Run a match with book
against no_book. Present here 10000000 positions of openings and tell me if a
chess program without almosi knowledge could solve the 90% percent. Then, I will
close my arguments and I will say: Ok, Uri, you are correct and I was complete
wrong.
Regards, Arturo.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I know something about opening theory.
>>>I am not expert in this field but I have stable rating that is close to 2000 in
>>>the last years.
>>>
>>
>>Considering the fact that you are recomending 1. e4 e5 2. De2 is a fact about
>>your level: A beginner that speak without any sense.
>
>I did not recommend it.
>I only said that even after these moves black has no easy win.
>
Really? I would say the Black can easy win this dumb opening. I would prefer 1.
f3! 2. g4! It should be better to prove if this is not a difficult win for
black.
I would like to prove 1. Nh3 2. a3 maybe interesting too.
(I am arguing in the nonsense here.) :))))
Regards, Arturo.
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.