Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 08:31:59 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 11:29:12, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >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 ! Well we would have to see about that, do you have any proof of the "human advantage" you talk about? 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.