Author: Günther Simon
Date: 04:59:16 11/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2005 at 07:38:34, Chessfun wrote: >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 Jim was just under the impression of the truth :) Axel told he used a short book for both programs, but that was simply proven wrong long before Jim posted first. Me, Jim and most others in this thread knew that Deep Sjeng used an extra engine book. The pgn itself contained the proof. Axel just made a mistake and you still refer to his mistake instead of the latter messages proven him wrong. If this still does not clear things for you up, I cannot help you. Guenther >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.