Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:42:48 09/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 03:13:41, martin fierz wrote: >On September 14, 2004 at 10:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>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. > >i will ask my GM acquaintances.... > > >>And all said they >>do _not_ play every opening system, > >of course not *every* - that should be obvious. but most of them have a couple >of different systems they play regularly, and the number of things they play >usually gets broader towards the top - which is an indication that the very best >players just might be the very best just because they can play all positions. Yes, but compare "a couple" against a book made of basically random games as was being discussed here. With the idea that if _both_ programs get "random opening positions" it is fair. I don't believe it is... > >>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. > >the market drives chessmaster. but does the market drive you/crafty? you have >the luxury of not having to give in to the whims of the masses as you are >independent of the commercial success of crafty (as there is no commercial >intent). I do crafty for competition, mainly against humans, but also against computers at WCCC/WMCCC type events. That was my point in this discussion. I didn't design Crafty as an analysis tool, although I did write code to do that, mainly for blunder checking as well as for analyzing games that it "understands"... > >cheers > martin
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.