Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 18:25:11 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
> >If he said that then his words and his deeds do not go hand in hand, at least >regarding the Diep book... He definitely tried to deviate from the beaten >opening paths by all of these: 1.g1h3, 1.d2d3, 1.g2g4... The English 1.c2c4 is >the only orthodox line in the Diep book. > >Rgds. > >Djordje I really wonder how you can draw conclusions as if they were a real truth. You must Philosopher or something similar. Could you check the last Tournaments that Diep has played and you could draw a correct conclusion about the Openings that Diep plays? Also, how can you conclude such things from a book made in 2 hours during 2001? Tell me why did you choose an old Diep Version with an eccentric book? Why not to request Vicent Diepeveen a new book?
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.