Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 09:47:33 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 12:39:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 12:31:26, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>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. > >Don't want to spoil the party but a novelty is defined as he said. It's a new >move however stupid or buggy it might be. :) No at all, Rolf. That is the typical "mathematical" definition of Uri Blass (never correct of course).... The party is this "uggly move" was a theoretical novelty. By the way, I dont think it was such thing.... By definition (maybe Uri Blass has changed the definition in informators and other socurces), it is a move that is considered important for the Theory. So, such move, I doubt if it will be considered for anything else. The party, of course, is the most famous game of CCT5 wih the uggliest move in the opening. This is the big party for some guys..... > >Was that new for you? > >Rolf Tueschen > > >> >>But who can discuss with you? ..........
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.