Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 09:31:26 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 10:29:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 10:05:41, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >> >>>Worst theoretical novelty: >>> >>>6...Rb8 in Ruffian-Diep. Either a bug in Vincent's book building code, or >>>garbage in the PGN he used to generate it. >>> >>[D]rnbqk1r1/pp2ppbp/2p2np1/3p4/2PP4/2N1PN2/PP2BPPP/R1BQK2R w KQq - >>> >>> >>>-Peter >> >>Hello: >> >>To call it the worst theoritical novelty is a mess.... because it was not a >>novelty, it was a severe bug... > >If we define something that was never played in the past as a novelty then it is >clearly a novelty by definition. You define that, we dont define that. You give a definition that you "believe" (using your usual word) is correct. Such blunder because of a bug in the code is not novelty. But who can discuss with you? .......... > >The fact that the move is because of a bug does not change it. So obvious fact doesnt mind to somebody and it is not the topic of the discussion.
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.