Author: Howard Exner
Date: 11:27:18 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 21:54:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 14, 1998 at 21:07:49, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On July 14, 1998 at 18:27:26, blass uri wrote: >> >> >>>It is not truth >>>The programs I have do not grab the rook if I give them 3 minutes. >>>Rxe6 is a good anti computer move. >> >>I agree, Rxe6 is a good move. If the point of the anti-Gm approach >>is to complicate things then Rxe6 is the move to play especially >>in an over-the-board encounter with the clocks ticking. > > >I think you are grossly under-estimating Anand. Where did I mention Anand in this thread? It is a thread about a chess position and what might be a good move for a computer to play. >You don't want to play >moves that complicate things, you want to play moves that win. You play >Rxe6 against Anand, you may as well take a shower with your electric toaster, >because he'll calculate that position, probably in blitz time control, and >rip the rook and the game... No need to lecture us on Anand's ability. I think we are all aware of how great a player he is. > >Complicated and unsound together don't work. Complicated without being unsound >is ok. Why not demonstrate why Rxe6 is unsound? Is that not the point you are trying to make? Why muddy it with the spin on how you understand how well Anand plays while I am somehow underestimating him? Show me Rxe6 is unsound and I'll retract my claim that it is a good choice for a computer to make in playing a human. It won't be the first time I'm wrong about a chess move.
This page took 0.01 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.