Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:40:14 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 10:33:24, José Carlos 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. >> >>The fact that the move is because of a bug does not change it. >> >>Uri > > The term "theoretical novelty", in chess, has a special meaning: it's a >novelty that is good. > So any random move can be a "novelty" but only good novelties are "theoretical >novelties". > > José C. No, TN's don't have to be good to be TNs. Dave
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.