Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 15:29:21 11/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 1998 at 16:28:04, blass uri wrote: > >On November 06, 1998 at 15:55:53, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >>On November 06, 1998 at 13:03:17, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>The following is a direct quote from the M-Chess Pro 8 review by Komputer Korner >>>(see Computer Chess Reports page): >>>"The reason to buy M-Chess Pro 8 is to obtain the strongest chess playing >>>program against humans. Of course Rebel 10 (with it's strength against humans >>>being almost on a par with M-Chess Pro 8 and with many more features) gets the >>>nod but again if you want the absolute strongest then M-Chess Pro 8 is for you." >>> >>>Does Komputer Korner know something I don't? Or is this a classic case of a >>>completely arbitrary opinion being presented as if it were a cast in stone fact? >>> >>> >>>Peter >> >>Well unfortunately no one will give me Mchess 8.1, and i'm tired of being one >>upped every time i buy a program so i think i will be content with having >>Junior5 and Rebel 10. Though i think it is a bit remiss for KK to say this >>program is better against humans than the other top programs. Especially when >>one considers style, as i said any strong player can draw any program any time >>they like. Though Genius 5 might get a win because it might bore you until you >>fell asleep and lose on time. Point being different styles are better against >>different opponents. He might want to say it is the best against the "majority" >>of GM's. Though i doubt he would have any empirical data(sig # games against >>masters+) to support such a claim(at least at this juncture). >> >>I prefer to say that comps are GM strength against opponents who play to win, >>but they are not GM strength playing against people who play for a draw. > >I see that sometimes in comp-comp games that computers do mistakes in the >endgame and manage to lose a dead draw positions so it may be a good strategy to >play a boring game against programs and hope that the program will do a mistake >in the endgame. > > > > This >>is because frequently a strong player will make a WEAKER move, because playing >>the weaker move often complicates the game especially against weaker opponents >>and avoids the draw. > >I am interested to know if frequently strong players make a weak move for this >purpose. > The answer is yes, when i said weaker i didn't mean "weak" i simply meant not the best move. >I think that usually strong players do not need to do a weak move for winning >weak players. The opponent does not even have to be weaker, for such a move to be played. Frequently you will see in the literature "not the best move, but institues complications" or something like "played for best PRACTICAL chances". Further lots of weaker moves are made against weaker players simply because you know they are weaker. Example being i'm shure you've heard players say "I'd never play this move against a master but..." The stronger player thinks he can(and indeed he actually can) get away with doing cheap shots against weaker players for quick kills, brilliancies, or just excitement. Prime example "I.M. Igor Ivanov". However yes most of the time at least in the amateur ranks, GM's do not have to play weaker moves(though it does happen if a GM is think the game will become so simple as to allow for a draw. Frequently minor masters can get draws against titled players if they let the game become to simple. Reynolds Takata USCF life Master Fide Master
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.