Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:10:39 09/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2004 at 11:32:48, David Dahlem wrote: >On September 14, 2004 at 10:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >So why should engine testers avoid the openings that an engine doesn't play >well? To do that is not an accurate method of testing engine strength. To get an >accurate picture of engine strength, testing must be done on a wide variety of >opening lines, not just a few lines the engine author likes. Again, why don't we settle this under "equal" conditions on a Karate mat? We get the same equipment, clothing, etc. Or does "experience" factor into that. But not into chess??? > >Regards >Dave > > >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.