Author: Peter Berger
Date: 06:47:38 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 05:34:37, Vasik Rajlich 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. > >Yes, this is an interesting point. A lot of "theory" is almost never played - >everybody knows the refutations, so there are no games. A thorough book author >will include these known refutations in his book. > >Your not being ready for 3. cxd5 goes in this category, since the move is a >blunder. The problem with 3. cxd5 immediately is that after 3. .. exd5 4. Nc3 >c6! black will take control of the b1-h7 diagonal with either 5. .. Bf5 or, if >white tries 5. Qc2, 5. .. Ne7 followed by 6. .. Bf5. When white correctly delays >cxd5, he will get this diagonal himself. > >For what it's worth, neither the Junior nor the Shredder book has this piece of >knowledge. > >Vas Yes, it was clearly my failure to not think of this transposition, and I was unhappy with it. But fixing it was easy as I simply had to add 3. ... exd 4. Nc3 c6 :) From another post I just read I am not sure if you have understood me correctly. My point is that in a situation not considered before the game I'd usually prefer having no bookmove at all than some bookmove taken from a GM game unchecked, so this is the lesser evil in my opinion. Thinking about it, this one could be tested easily - would only take some time. 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.