Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:12:13 05/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2005 at 06:53:54, Robert Hollay wrote: >On May 23, 2005 at 06:18:36, Claude Le Page wrote: > >>For instance , Kasparov was not yet GM when he has beaten Polugaevsky at the >>USSR Champonship >>But he did it , not by playing "antichess" , but by a TN in one of the pet lines >>of Polugaevsky in Najdorf Sicilian >>That is he proof that an IM can beat a top level GM just by playing CHESS , not >>antichess > > Yes, I know that. My question was only related to the fact that >"antichess" seemed to be an efficient weapon against some strong engines. >But I can understand now that it's not so effective against humans. > The only puzzle now is how can programmers implement "anti-anti chess" in >their >engines, and whether it is worth the effort. The opinions vary. > >Robert I do not know if it is not so effective against humans. I think that we need to see games of some player who tried antichess against humans who are slightly better and failed in order to know it. games when the difference in rating is more than 200 elo are not interesting because the stronger player may win by choosing inferior moves that confuse the opponent. Uri
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.