Author: martin fierz
Date: 22:46:33 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 10:20:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 13, 2004 at 06:41:10, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On September 12, 2004 at 03:52:56, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 12, 2004 at 00:42:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Sure, forcing Kasparov to play English openings, forcing Karpov to play the >>>>Latvian, etc. Wouldn't be very revealing however... >>> >>>Indeed it would, every player should know his strong and weak points, perhaps he >>>plays the english better than he is aware of :) >> >>At least he (Kasparov) apparently plays the English better than you and Bob >>are aware of. ;-) >> >>The English opening was one of his main weapons with white around >>1985-1990. >> >>Tord > > >The point is he doesn't choose to play it a lot today. Nor other openings. >Remember that he claimed that was the thing that cost him the last game against >DB, playing an opening he didn't play much. i don't understand your view on the whole subject; but i specially disagree with your statements about chess (players). modern grandmasters have an incredibly broad opening repertoire. this is a rather new development, probably assisted by chessbase. if you believe that korchnoi never plays anything but 1.d4 or that kasparov never plays the english in serious games, you are rather mistaken. kasparov was looking for excuses everywhere to explain his failure in the DB match, it sounds more like a plausible attempt of his to cover up the fact that he just played a horrible match. here's why i don't understand your attitude in this thread: as a chess player, i have learned a lot by playing different openings. i have, for example, lost my fear of the IQP over the last years as a result of playing the tarrasch defence. now the tarrasch is supposed to be just very slightly dubious, but it doesn't matter: i learned something there. by restricting crafty to what you know it can do you might be missing things it can't do that you might otherwise find. besides: how many players are interested in a strong chess engine? on my level (FM) i know exactly ZERO people who play against engines. on the other hand, 99% of the poeple i know on my level use engines to analyze games. conclusion: if you want to make an engine that is useful for the average user of strong chess engines, it has to be able to deal with all positions that the user throws at it. cheers martin
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.