Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:24:58 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 12:31:26, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >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? .......... Relax. Another poster explained me that it is a novelty but not a theoretical novelty and in this case the name the worst theoretical novelty is also not justified. It was only a question of definition and I was not 100% sure if I am right and this is the reason that I started my post with if. > >> >>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. The first poster who called it the worst theoretical novelty suggested that it is a bug so saying that it was a bug is relevant to the discussion but not relevant to the claim that you made that it is not a novelty. I will stop to discuss this subject because I do not find it as important. 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.