Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:21:47 11/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2005 at 15:03:25, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 15, 2005 at 14:17:22, Chessfun wrote: > >>On November 15, 2005 at 07:59:16, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>You keep going round it the same circle. And once again assume I need something >>cleared up which I didn't and don't. >> >>Why assume Jim had read the whole thread and therefore knew? all I did seeing as >>it seemed he didn't know was point him to a thread. Pretty simple actually, it >>didn't need or require any comments from you about thread redundancy and you've >>carried that redundancy on ever since. >> >>Thanks >>Sarah. > > >There may be a misunderstanding but >to finish this discussion >Let start with fact that we agree > >1)we can agree that you wrote in >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?461746 > >"I simply pointed Jim to the fact that engine books were not >used." >Note that I am not sure how to understand the claim: >"engine books were not used." From the post I originally pointed too: Engine book the book the engine came with. But the word means nothing my original post simply gave a link to the words below: "They didn't play with their native books, but with the widely used shortbook (under CB GUI). " Jim had wrote which I replied to with the link to the above words: "Congrats to the book maker" Point being these were not native engine books, which it seemed to me he had not noticed. 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.