Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:34:43 01/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 21:40:14, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Maybe you have a different definition over there. I've played chess for some years, I've played spanish ch. a couple of times, I've been champion of my area many times... In my experience as a chess player, a TN is a N which: - is played by a strong player - is played in a "correct" game (meaning that, after the move, there's a good plan) - is later repeated by others In a word, a TN is a N which proves good. A random N is _never_ considered a TN. Otherwise, every game would contain a TN. At least, in Spain. José C.
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.