Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Most brilliant novelty from cct7 Witchess-Arasan

Author: Vasik Rajlich

Date: 10:11:40 02/15/05

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2005 at 09:47:38, Peter Berger wrote:

>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.

Actually offhand I'd prefer the GM moves, maybe with some conditions. If a
modern GM is still in his home preparation, or even just close to it, his move
should be better. I guess you have to be careful though.

As for testing - the difference here should be less than 20 rating points.
Everyone is throwing around wild numbers ... 20 rating points == 60 extra points
scored in a 1000-game match, that's too much here IMO.

Vas

>
>Peter



This page took 0.06 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.