Author: Marc Lacrosse
Date: 21:30:00 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2005 at 23:13:40, David Mitchell wrote: >We understand that, in some way, you feel greatly disappointed with Fruit, and >it's team, Marc. The details I don't know, nor do I want or need to know. > >But JN has made some valuable posts here recently, into a part of CC that >non-competitors seldom see. He's done that, despite not being the champion in >Iceland, and has gone through several of his mistakes he felt he made, point by >point. > >You may know, or feel differently about those points, but to come out here on a >public forum, and try to belittle his work, Fruit, etc., is really not >appreciated. JN has admitted his errors, and certainly isn't claiming to be >perfect in the future, either. > >Please don't "slice and dice" every possible error of JN's books, here. This is >not a chess opening book's "autopsy lab", and all it will accomplish is to cause >JN and others, to refrain from posting here. With accompanying loss to this >group. > >When people open up, and make themselves vulnerable by making posts which >include their own mistakes, (for the benefit of this group as a whole), it's >just not civilized to kick them in the teeth, regardless of how you feel about >them, overall. > >Your critical comments are always welcome Marc, but there is a line between >being critical, and taking into the realm of super-critical, >professional/personal belittling. > >I'm sure everyone wishes you the best in your future chess book ventures. > >Dave Hi Dave I understand. May I just remind you that I did not initiate this thread ? Jeroen wrote a long - and interesting - report on his perception of events in the Diep - Fruit game. Nobody asked him to do it and the general flow of the group had already gone to other topics than Leiden. So it was his will to give a detailed report of this game. We are here in a public forum, aren't we ? I have immense respect for Jeroen former work and outstanding results with rebel and other engines. But in the present case my feeling is that his preparation for this game was bad, and I feel that I am more qualified to say that than all those people who immediately approved Jeroen's report without any analytical work : I have had dozens of nights testing and analysing Fruit's more or less correst play in every possible early middlegame position. Jeroen focused on the fact that if Fruit had played another move than the very first one it played when being out-of-book it could and should not have lost this game. This is precisely why this was not a good preparation IMHO : Jeroen's book should never have ended in a position where Fruit would immediately play weak moves when left on its own! In another sentence of this long post Jeroen invoked grandmaster evaluation of a given position. It seems that I do not see the same grandmasters at work in my own databases. Is it impolite to say that? As this "grandmaster opinion" was Jeroen's main justification for having chosen a given variation in his book instead of another well-known one, this was something interesting to discuss, maybe? Please note that nobody, and Jeroen primarily, did meet these two points. Where I do completely agree with you is the fact that I should have chosen a less abrupt way of speaking. I did not initiate the thread and I won't come back myself on these things. Marc
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.