Author: Peter Berger
Date: 12:11:46 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2003 at 18:08:00, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 26, 2003 at 09:17:32, Peter Berger wrote: > >>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 > >You might be selling, but I'm not buying. I don't have to accept anyone's >assessments at face value, not even Uri's. > I really can't follow. Uri and Michael provided arguments, Jeroen provided a thesis that turned out to be wrong, you provided a snide remark with a smiley. What is the assessment that some might take at face value here ? 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.