Author: Howard Exner
Date: 19:00:56 07/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1998 at 17:34:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 28, 1998 at 14:42:03, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On July 28, 1998 at 04:04:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I don't know of many players that would castle opposite in a >>>serious game against a computer, on general principles if nothing else... >> >>What is your assessment of who has the upper hand in attacking the king >>- a computer or an equally strong human? > > >There's little doubt that a human is better. That's my belief also and that is why I think humans have a slight pull in opposite castling games, where attacking the king is typically the plan to run with . Actually I first started speculating that this could be the case after playing over the Deep Thought collection in my database. I've got 5.5-4.5 for the humans in the 10 opposite side castling games I could find. >But why roll the dice when you >can lay them face up any way you want. In a Stonewall, the human has nothing >to worry about except developing and parrying small threats. But when you >castle opposite, you can overlook something, and when you do, it is often >"critical"... Yes the Stonewall can be an effective weapon against the computer. > >IE I want the program's king exposed, but *mine* safely tucked away. In this >game, anything could happen, and almost did... Yes the Anand - Rebel game 7 was tense. I hope Anand provides us with some analysis. I'm not sure what else he could have played besides O-O-O.
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.