Author: Chessfun
Date: 04:38:34 11/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2005 at 06:15:17, Günther Simon wrote: >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? Again if you simply go back to my original post, it wasn't a matter of what I got. Jim's impression was that engine books were used. I simply pointed him to a previous post which made it clear that wasn't the case. To that you decided to chime in with your comments. 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.