Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Weak-chain argument

Author: Matthew Hull

Date: 14:24:13 02/18/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 18, 2003 at 17:09:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On February 18, 2003 at 16:57:59, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2003 at 15:38:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On February 15, 2003 at 15:26:13, Chessfun wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 14:52:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 14:34:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer me this, What Difference Does it make if you play more
>>>>>>>positional chess, if you cannot defeated me??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If that were the case, I would agree.  But by the same token, do you want
>>>>>>your program to play 30 brilliant moves and one lemon move, over and over?
>>>>>>That one lemon will drag your performance _way_ down at the top of the rating
>>>>>>scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob, may I point out with humility that this is exactly my weak-chain argument?
>>>>>Finally we are on the point. Did you ever reflect what would happen if
>>>>>
>>>>> - in a really recompensating money atmosphere and
>>>>>
>>>>> - after top players adopted specific comp related chess?
>>>>>
>>>>>And that on the base of a known permanent weakness?
>>>>>
>>>>>That is the point. And not the typical hype based on show events /commercials.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is you impression with the GM play on ICC? But note, Roman D. had to face
>>>>>an always changed version [on the base of his own hints]. Guess what will happen
>>>>>if several top GM work hard on a counter strategy against comps, in other words
>>>>>if GM adopt 'Eduard'...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You clearly have no clue as to what actually happens.
>>>
>>>
>>>Note that nobody here must come with humility! It was a bit irony by me. But -
>>>you are a bit too respectless. Why?
>>>
>>>Here you completely miss my point. You should read it again and always think
>>>about tournament times. Not Blitz.
>>
>>You seem to have finally answered your own question.
>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?285129
>>
>>Sarah
>
>I don't understand what you might possibly mean. Because here to you and there
>to Matthew Hull I always said the same. Bob can't have spoken about tournament
>chess. Crafty is NOT playing tournament chess on ICC. So you are wrong and also
>Matthew is wrong because he wanted to take Bob as if he  had said that for
>tournament chess they are GM. Wrong - Bob said the opposite.
>
>Let's wait until Bob says what he meant. :)


The Crafty-GMGuseinov match on FICS was two draws at slow time controls.

Matt


>
>Rolf Tueschen
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Roman may be good against comps and there are other GM's and IM's that are, and
>>>>there are also many, that try daily over and over and over and simply see loss
>>>>after loss after loss.
>>>>
>>>>Scrappy has been playing jnogueiras who is GM Jesús Nogueiras Santiago
>>>>for days and scrappy has been slaughtering him. While IM Alexis Cabrera handle
>>>>Minotauro has for the most part scored about even.
>>>>
>>>>Point being that some maybe able to adapt their game to an anti-computer type
>>>>play (trading pieces etc) others never manage despite playing endlessly.
>>>>
>>>>Sarah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Only then, and that is my argument since long, the actual commercial progs begin
>>>>>to SUCK. But on a permanent base!
>>>>>
>>>>>My questions to Amir went a bit in the same direction. Let's see how far the
>>>>>experts can open their mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rolf Tueschen



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.