Author: David Dahlem
Date: 14:39:28 09/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2004 at 17:10:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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??? This is not even close to being responsive to my post. Instead you change the subject to ??? Karate ??? :-) Regards Dave > > >> >>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.