Author: Brian Kostick
Date: 08:37:06 10/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2003 at 09:45:07, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 20, 2003 at 09:40:10, Brian Kostick wrote: > >>On October 19, 2003 at 17:07:23, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 19, 2003 at 17:01:44, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 19, 2003 at 16:58:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>Hi Uri, >>>> >>>>Still no reaction on my posting of today!? >>>> >>>>Keep on dreaming about the selfproclaimed opening trap! >>>>Johan convinced me it wasn't, so what's your point now? >>>> >>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>> >>>>PS I am very curious what will be next, how can I be blamed >>>>for the Diep-Rebel disaster :-)). >>> >>>I do not say that you are quilty but only that it was a mistake to allow a line >>>that the commercial version could play. >>> >>>I do not claim that in this case Rebel lost because of that mistake and of >>>course in case of no preperation the result is not your fault. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>A few days ago you stated the engine is at fault if it does not check the book >>moves. Following that, to one conclusion, is that Jeroen can not be at fault. BK > >It was another case. > >In that case it was a stupid mistake. > >I do not say that blunder checking of the book moves by the engine can prevent >every mistake but it can prevent at least mistakes that lead to scores like >+9 for the opponent and the bad move of hiarcs was leading to something like >that. > >It was not the case in the game when Rebel lost so it is not relevant. > >Uri I maintain that if you are checking a book for less than stupid mistake you might as well remove 'stupid mistake', instead of counting on the engine to do it. BK
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.