Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:30:07 09/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2004 at 01:46:33, martin fierz wrote: >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. I didn't say "never". I said "in important games". That is pretty true. I have asked this very question to three different GM players, all said that they have specific favorite openings for important games/matches. And all said they do _not_ play every opening system, which means your "incredibly broad repertoire" might be true in general as they do study openings a lot, but it doesn't appear to be true when it is time for optimal results as in important matches or tournaments... >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. All that is well and good. But the point is still this: Time is limited. And one way to fix a problem is to bypass it. IE in building a road, I can build a bridge over a lake in the way, or I can build _around_ the lake. The latter is way faster and cheaper, and the net result is the same - you still get to where you want to go. I've said many times in the past that I _have_ done what you suggest. You might remember my comments about Cray Blitz _never_ playing a g3/g6 type opening as it didn't understand the importance of the bishop in those positions. It was easier at the time to just not play them. I later fixed that in Crafty and see no problems with that kind of play now. But I see no overwhelming need to fix every kind of opening setup immediately, when it can be deferred until some later time with a simple book fix. That is my point. Not that a program _shouldn't_ play all openings well, but that there is no rush to make that happen in every case. Why is that so hard to understand? _everybody_ has done it and still does. That is what the professional book authors contribute to a chess development project... >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. supply and demand. How many FM/IM players are there vs how many club players? It is the market that drives this. Chessmaster is the best example. > >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.