Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:21:59 10/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2003 at 14:04:28, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On October 21, 2003 at 13:08:18, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On October 21, 2003 at 04:49:45, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >> >>>Thanks for your effort, Dann >>> >>>i believe Jeroen and Alex, that 16...b4 is already a loosing one. >>>May be Dan Wulff's (Gandalf's Book Author) approach, to throw out all book >>>lines, where after a short analyses absulute score is greater some threshold, is >>>practical to avoid such book lines at all. >> >>I remain unconvinced that 16 .. b4 loses. Now, it might lose. But I have not >>seen ANY convincing evidence that it does. > >I'm not sure - i still trust Jeroen's and Alex's competence and long year >experience. And i don't think that they are playing games with us by having some >"secret" refutation parat ;-) > >Ok, it always happend in the past, that some "dead" lines became playable again. >One "hole" in such lines may let programs miss the decisive key move due to some >very deep tactis with a rook or more less. > >Gerd Partly this is interesting on its own (finding out the truth about the position), partly because of the strong statements of the bookcooks (which makes it fun to prove them wrong). But when it is about the Rebel - IsiChess game itself, in the Uri Blass/Michael Drexel line as shown in http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?322827, Rebel's last book move would have been 21. Rge1 and I think a draw would have been much more likely than a win for Rebel here. I'll try to see if Rebel 12 could win this against another strong amateur program at similar to Leiden time controls. Peter
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.