Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:54:01 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 12:47:33, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >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. Me neither, but I saw novelties in Informator directly combined with a big question mark. So far Uri is the better mathematician to say the least. Rolf Tueschen > >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.