Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:49:13 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 08:32:02, Mark Young wrote: >On November 08, 2001 at 07:54:59, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On November 08, 2001 at 06:59:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2001 at 06:35:18, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>Can anyone here beat the "best" prog in 40/120 without using anti comp >>>>strtegies? on atleast an Athlon 1000? >>>> >>>>I have seen a lot of post where people draw the comps when trying to do nothing >>>>but that, but i am yet to see someone not using anti comp strategies beat them >>>>in a 40/120 on fast hardware..... anyone up for the challenge? >>> >>>What's the point of not playing anticomputer strategies? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>The point being: 1. A GM of conciderable strength would not play anti comp. > >You don't know the history of computers Vs. GM players. This is not correct. > >[Event "Chess Meeting 2000 Super"] >[Site "Dortmund"] >[Date "2000.07.12"] >[Round "5"] >[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"] >[Black "Junior 6"] >[Result "1-0"] >[ECO "D00"] >[WhiteElo "2770"] >[PlyCount "65"] >[EventDate "2000.07.07"] > >1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 e6 4. f4 Be7 5. Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Ng4 8. Qe2 >c4 9. Bc2 f5 10. Rg1 Nc6 11. h3 Nf6 12. g4 Ne4 13. Qg2 g6 14. Qh2 Kh8 15. h4 >Nxd2 16. Bxd2 fxg4 17. Ng5 Qe8 18. h5 gxh5 19. Rxg4 Rf6 20. Rh4 Rh6 21. O-O-O >a5 22. Rh1 b5 23. Bd1 Ra7 24. Bxh5 Qf8 25. e4 Bd8 26. f5 b4 27. Bg6 Rxh4 28. >Qxh4 bxc3 29. bxc3 Bf6 30. Qxh7+ Rxh7 31. Rxh7+ Kg8 32. Bf7+ Qxf7 33. Rxf7 1-0 My dad tought me 4 years ago that the stonewall (in this case transposed) was the way to beat comps, cause he had used this line to beat comps since the 70's!! > >[Event "Chess Meeting 2000 Super"] >[Site "Dortmund"] >[Date "2000.07.15"] >[Round "8"] >[White "Junior 6"] >[Black "Piket, Jeroen"] >[Result "0-1"] >[ECO "B15"] >[BlackElo "2649"] >[PlyCount "68"] >[EventDate "2000.07.07"] > >1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. h3 a6 6. Bf4 Nf6 7. e5 Nfd7 8. Qd2 e6 >9. Bg5 Qb6 10. O-O-O h6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. h4 b5 13. Bf4 Nb6 14. a3 N8d7 15. Kb1 >a5 16. Na2 Qa7 17. g4 Bf8 18. c3 Ba6 19. Qe1 Nc4 20. Bd2 Be7 21. Nc1 Ndb6 22. >h5 g5 23. Na2 Kd7 24. Bc1 Rhb8 25. Ka1 b4 26. Nd2 Nxd2 27. Bxd2 Bxf1 28. Rxf1 >Nc4 29. Rb1 b3 30. Nc1 Bxa3 31. Qd1 Qb6 32. bxa3 b2+ 33. Ka2 bxc1=N+ 34. Qxc1 >Qxb1+ 0-1 > > > >>2.If a program has a fault which can be taken advantage of by using anti comp >>strategies making it look like a 2000 player there is no point in playing it. > >You don't know if anti-computer play will work until you try it. ChessTiger did >not have any problem with anti-computer play...that resulted in a loss when it >scored a TPR of 2788. My point was not: see if you can find new anti comp stretegies, my point was: can anyone beat a prog (top 5) when not using anti comp, meaning: playing it like any other opponent! >>just like using the same line to beat the comp to determine it's strength. >>3. Is anyone here capable of beating the comp under these conditions?? > >Anticomputer play should be used if the player wishes. You don't know if >anti-computer play will work or not. Besides there are many types of >anti-computer play, and it would not be fair to claim or not claim anti-computer >play if the human wins. > I did not say that in general people should not be allowed the use of anti comp play. I repeat myself: can anyone here beat a top 5 prog without using anti comp strategies at 40/120 on fast hardware? Regards Jonas
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.