Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:47:45 10/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2003 at 16:25:51, Torstein Hall wrote: >On October 20, 2003 at 15:57:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 20, 2003 at 15:00:23, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>On October 20, 2003 at 14:52:09, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>Hi Uri, >>> >>>Sigh. You are really very stubborn. If even Alex and I together cannot convince >>>you, then I simply quit. You would even question me if I would state that the >>>earth is not flat :-). >>> >>>Simply letting a machine calculate for 13 plies on one position is not enough >>>here. The loss is more than 30 plies in the future. Now be brave and take the >>>Rebel or Fritz book and look it up. Or play some autoplay games after ... b4 and >>>watch what happens. >> >>Relex. >> >>I do not claim that white is not winning and I even agree that white is probably >>winning >>I do not criticize your choice of the book but only the claim that black is >>losing after b4 instead of claiming that black is probably losing. >> >>The point is that it is not a position when I can be sure even in 99% that white >>is winning without analyzing it for a very long time. >> >>If the loss is more than 30 plies in the future and there is no singular line >>then in order to prove the win you may need to analyze thousands of lines. >> >>I could see in few lines that black is losing but it can convince me to give >>probability of maybe 80% that black is already lost. >> >>More lines can increase the probability but I guess that I will probably need >>thousands of hours if I want to be sure that it is a win. >> >>Of course it is better to have 100 lines that you are sure in 80% that they win >>and not one line that you are sure in 99.9% that it wins so a decision not to >>investigate if it wins after getting the opinion that it probably wins is >>correct practical decision. > >HeHe I loved that sentence. Can you explain it please? Yes If you have 100 lines that you are 80% sure of winning then it means that there is better chance that the opponent is going to fall into a trap relative to the case that there is 1 line that you are 99.9% sure of winning. And remmeber since this >is in the openingbooks there is probably alot of convincing GM analysis >somewhere. And by the way, have you ever been wrong? :-) > >Torstein I do not claim that I am always right but the fact that GM's do not find something is not a proof and it may be possible that a good practical decision is not to investigate it. It may be a bad idea to work months only to try to find if there is a saving line that you do not know if it exists when you can at the same time improve your knowledge in other openings. GM's are not scientists and they try to achieve the best results that they can achieve in games and not to be sure about the theoretical result of some position. 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.