Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 08:29:12 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 11:15:38, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On November 08, 2001 at 11:09:08, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On November 08, 2001 at 10:33:23, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2001 at 10:31:41, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >>> >>>>That *is* the point. I know every master in my area. When I play one who is weak >>>>in the ending, I try to exploit that, just as he knows me, and tries to exploit >>>>my weaknesses. When I play Tiger, I know it is relatively weak if I can lock the >>>>pawns (as an example). To you, this is 'anti-computer' play. To me, I am playing >>>>it just like I would *anybody else*; going after it's weaknesses and avoid it's >>>>strengths. To me, that is normal chess. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Chris >>>> >>>I mean anti comp openings, sorry if i was not clear about that, but i thought >>>that was implicit. >> >>So, that means forbidding certain openings for the human? >>Then the computer should play without book ;-) >> >In this case yes, the challenge implies that (not in general though), and sure >i wouldn't mind holding up my end of the challenge, and furthermore not using >the comp book. > >Regards >Jonas That will advantage too much the "humans" since they know the opening by memory and know how to play the strongest moves in that ECO. That's the reason why comps have integrated the opening books !
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.