Author: Günther Simon
Date: 03:15:17 11/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2005 at 01:54:08, Chessfun wrote: >On November 14, 2005 at 23:44:34, Günther Simon wrote: > >>On November 14, 2005 at 19:01:09, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2005 at 14:56:25, Günther Simon wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2005 at 14:31:24, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>... >>>>>>Hello Uri, >>>>>>Your game has nothing to do with the topic that I can see. I just searched the >>>>>>almost 512,000 games in the Chessbase database.cbh that came with one of the >>>>>>programs. There is not one game with the position after 5....Qb6. You can >>>>>>argue all you want about some people who have played that position but you >>>>>>cannot convince me it's a good move. It may have surprise benefits if you have >>>>>>done some home analysis or you are playing some correspondence game where you >>>>>>have time to work out all problems or can find games already played from that >>>>>>position to give you ideas. Obviously, Deep Sjeng had an advantage here with >>>>>>"prior knowledge" of the position backed up by a couple more book moves. >>>>>>Congrats to the book maker. >>>>>>Jim >>>>> >>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?461610 >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>>You missed the point. >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?461624 >>>> >>>>I wonder how much redundant info will still arise in this thread? >>> >>>As long as you count yours as one post, fine with me. >>> >>>>My post contained already all necessary infos about the setup flaw >>>>and about the too short search time for such a position... >>>>(independent from Fruit) >>>> >>>>Guenther >>> >>>I missed no point. I simply pointed Jim to the fact that engine books were not >>>used. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>And what is the meaning of telling him something he knew already? > >Are you psychic? how would you know what he knew? clearly not by reading his >post as if you did you would clearly notice from the post I replied to and his >reply to mine that he didn't know that engine books were not used. > >"Obviously, Deep Sjeng had an advantage here with "prior knowledge" of the >position backed up by a couple more book moves. Congrats to the book maker." > >Do you need a further explaination or is it clear enough now? ?? You behave really weird here and I will let moderate your last post. Haven't you still got that Deep Sjeng was favoured in this game, because it used by accident a _second_ book with more moves than Fruit? That's what we all were talking about and I don't see what's your problem to grasp this from Jims post, from mine and from others in this thread? Guenther >>What has it to do with the fact that the used a wrong book setup >>at all? >>? > >Did I say anything about whether it mattered or not, there you go again trying >your psychic ability. If I were you, I'd simply skip it and forget about trying >to act like John Edwards. > No comment, I would say you should just apologize before your post is going to be deleted. >Sarah.
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.