Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:27:29 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 Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that they are mistaken. Many times in the past, I have questioned either human or computer analysis. Almost always, I am proven wrong. What I am saying is that I have not seen the proof. On the other hand, I have seen plausible alternatives. Therefore, I continue to have some doubts until I have been shown why. My own opinion is that there is always *some* doubt until either a checkmate or stalemate has been rigorously proven. However, there are many cases where the doubt is very, very small.
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.