Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 12:52:15 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
Well, I sometimes play the Stonewall against humans. Also the Old Benoni. These are both considered 'anti-computer' systems by some. You wish me not to use *my* openings because my opponent happens to be *weak* at them? Isn't that precisely the reason I would want to play them in the first place? Why isn't it as simple as 'Can any human on here beat a top program on a 1 GHz chip at 40/2?' *period* ? Why the need to unnecessarily complicate things? When it comes down to it, it's all just my ideas vs. the computers 'ideas' right? Isn't that what we *love* about chess? Chris 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. > >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.