Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:33:30 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2003 at 15:11:46, Peter Berger wrote: >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 I fail to see how my earlier remark was snide. Analyze the variations for yourself, and you may (or may not, I suppose) come to the conclusion that White's doing very well. Dave
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.