Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 11:07:29 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 09:39:08, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 06:53:43, Arturo Ochoa 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 >> >>Of course, Shedder has played in Tournaments more side lines than this. For >>example: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 against the French. >> >>3. cxd is not a blunder because it doesnt mean a direct lost. It is just a >>passive move. >> >>Correction: >> >>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd exd 4. Nf3 if .... c6. >> >>5. Bf4..... >> >>your options..... 5. .... Bf5 6. e3... The position is = >> >>5. ... Ne7 6. Nf3 = >> >>The problem is not the move is a mistake. It is just a passive move. That´s >>all. >> >>Arturo. > >Actually on 4. Nf3 black can play 4. .. Bd6, since .. Bf5 still can't be >stopped. > >Of course white is ok - white is always ok. This situation just shows one of the >problems with automatically generated books. 3. cxd5 is a line that must be done >manually, game statistics won't help. > >In fact, when I first saw this game, I thought that maybe this was one of >Vincent's little jokes ... > >Vas It is just a joke what you have written before. The joke is to think the move is a blunder. If you say that how I can explain you. It would interesting what you think a blunder is. Are you clear with that concept? Besides, givin a simple move doesnt prove anything. Can you point out a better proof that those moves are a direct blunder? I am sure that your next reply will funnier. Continue. I can read some jokes here. :)))) Arturo.
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.