Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 23:23:55 02/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2005 at 20:56:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 14, 2005 at 20:08:42, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On February 14, 2005 at 19:54:03, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On February 14, 2005 at 19:38:12, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>Not really. It is presmise already debated previously. It doesnt provide a new >>>>light about the thopic. Sorry. >>> >>>OK, one more (and no, I never claimed to have any special skills and ideas in >>>this area at all, that was you and Vincent :) ). One of the poor programs >>>provided with a book by me and playing with the black pieces will be out of book >>>after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 as happened for Crafty against Diep last year , >>>if I hadn't thought of this possibilty before - isn't that just awful ? I don't >>>think so, it's just logical. Control has become a major point IMHO , the engines >>>don't do too bad on their own. Of course it is better if you thought of some >>>potentially relevant line like this, but better nothing than random grandmaster >>>lines. Yes, you opposed this point of view multiple times before in discussions >>>with Uri , but I think you never managed to score. I'd accept a challenge btw - >>>over a good bottle of wine, champaigne, or so. >> >>Well, a lack of memory..... In WCC2004 just another game.... Fritz-Diep where >>the Opening Preparation was relevant. > > >I remember that Fritz lost the game because of a stupid blunder when it >sacrificed material for no reason when other programs can avoid that mistake. > >Uri I can also remember that Fritz repeated the same variation that Falcon has used against Diep and it was not a good ideas to do it. You miss again important details. But how can I explain you that?
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.