Author: Peter Berger
Date: 06:17:32 10/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2003 at 07:06:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 26, 2003 at 04:51:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 26, 2003 at 04:20:36, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On October 25, 2003 at 18:54:38, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>On October 25, 2003 at 16:26:43, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>>> >>>>>I believe 20 Kb1! kills this line completely, but I am sure some persons (who do >>>>>not know this line, but always tend to disagree :-)) will try to come up with a >>>>>defence. >>>> >>>>I am not sure if chess discussions at CCC make sense - but did you follow the >>>>last one that showed that the Tiger and Fritz books have _nothing_ to offer >>>>against 16. .. b4 ?! , but only lines that will lead to a forced draw? >>>> >>>>In case the answer is no , it will at least save some time for users who engage >>>>in these discussions in the future. >>> >>>We (at least I) do not engage in these dicussions to help them to improve their >>>books. >>>Of course he has cooked up something against 16...b4 that might be at least >>>deadly for programs, but he won't tell you. >> >>Maybe yes and maybe no and it is possible that he prefered not to change the >>book in the last moment gambling that the opponent will not try to go to that >>line. >> >>What I do not like is claims that one side is winning when you cannot be sure >>about it. >> >>Uri > >It's starting to seem that you're the only person who isn't sure about it. :-) > >Dave Thanks for clarifying my point, which allows me to also answer Michael :). Uri and mainly Michael Drexel have shown that contrary to the loud and self-confident statements of Jeroen Noomen and Axel Kure the lines in the commercial Tiger and Fritz books, that supposedly lead to a clear win against ..b4, that everyone with a minimum of intelligence can grasp, lead to an equal position instead, that would most probably have allowed Isi to get an easy draw against Rebel. What makes me sometimes doubt that discussion of chesspositions at CCC makes much sense, is that it seems to be tough to get anywhere, because people either just repeat their initial statements regardless of any additional arguments provided in the meantime, or choose to just believe the one with the bigger name - thanks for providing a nice example, Dave :). 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.