Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 22:12:02 10/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2003 at 16:47:45, Uri Blass wrote: [..] >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 If I lose my queen (White or Black pieces, doesn't matter) by a blunder on move 3 or 4, all GMs would probably say I'm lost. I would, despite the inability to *prove* it by exhaustive searching of *all* variations. But until you [Uri] calculate *all* subsequent variations, would not say I am lost for sure? Only that I am probably lost? :) Because chess is not *solved* for most positions (except for rare positions with forced mates or forced repetitions, etc, and endgames through 5 pieces, some 6 pieces), it is not possible to be sure of anything (by exhaustive research on exponential quantities of variations). You can't be sure that a position is lost, even where a queen is blundered after 3 or 4 moves. If the above paragraph is true, why state the obvious just to disagree with someone whose opinion (and perhaps research) concludes the opposite. --Steve
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.