Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Human vs. human "anti-chess" ?

Author: chandler yergin

Date: 08:06:56 05/23/05

Go up one level in this thread


On May 22, 2005 at 18:04:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On May 22, 2005 at 17:36:27, Robert Hollay wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 2005 at 17:16:43, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22, 2005 at 16:45:24, Robert Hollay wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>>If relatively weak players can draw against the top engines, why couldn't an IM
>>>>achieve always a draw against a GM? (using the so called "stonewall" technique)
>>>>
>>>>Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>      Because a GM
>>>
>>>      a) has a much greater chess knowledge
>>>         in all phases of a game than an IM
>>>
>>>      b) plays usually more precisely than
>>>         an IM
>>>
>>>      c) ... wins for some other reasons
>>>
>>>      Kurt
>>
>>So a human can always prevent another human to play the so called "anti-chess"?
>>I asked this question only because it seemed to me that this "stonewall" defence
>>reduces the margin of knowledge between chess-players.
>
>You mean the margin of the differences in knowledge... yes, but the point is if
>a GM does know your tick for Stonewall, he will prepare for advantages. A
>Stonewall is NOT absolutely safe.

When the center is blocked, play on the wing begins.
 The stonewall is only good against Computers..



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.