Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 ?!

Author: Drexel,Michael

Date: 05:13:18 11/12/05

Go up one level in this thread


On November 12, 2005 at 07:20:35, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 12, 2005 at 07:08:28, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>
>>On November 12, 2005 at 06:48:06, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>
>>>On November 12, 2005 at 06:43:52, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 12, 2005 at 06:27:24, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On November 12, 2005 at 06:17:10, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On November 12, 2005 at 03:59:54, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the running Open Dutch Computerchess Championship
>>>>>>>it was the program "Usurpator" to choose with White
>>>>>>>twice the queen move Qh5 in the second move. Of course,
>>>>>>>both games endet with a disaster. What the hell is the
>>>>>>>idea of the programmer to choose such a bad opening line?
>>>>>>>Kurt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Both games ended in a disaster because Ursupator is a very weak program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I´m sure this would be a great opening move to play against all engines because
>>>>>>you quickly get them out of book and the chances to get some nonsense moves are
>>>>>>very high.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      Hi Michael
>>>>>      I very much doubt ... you can say what you want,
>>>>>      but an opening where Black is slightly better
>>>>>      after the second move should be avoided at any
>>>>>      cost ... at least in matches between computer
>>>>>      programs.
>>>>>      Regards
>>>>>      Kurt
>>>>
>>>>Nope, this should only be avoided if you don´t have some further book moves.
>>>>Why do you think people on the chess servers are sucessful with Nonsense
>>>>openings like 1.d4 d5 2.h4, 1.d4 d5 2.a4, 1.b3 d5 2.Ba3 etc?
>>>>
>>>>Michael
>>>
>>>      Those who are accustomed with such nonsense openings
>>>      have the advantage to surprise their opponents but
>>>      this does not count vs a computer program.
>>
>>This would be a pleasant surprise.
>>Such openings are pointless against humans.
>>I´m talking about computer vs. computer only.
>
>What humans know that computers do not know?

IMO _strong_ humans are better than computers in the opening, computers are
generally pretty clueless.
Some engines are better than other engines, they all are relatively weak
compared to a 2700 player.

>Humans are not better than computers in FRC
so the assumption that humans are
>better than computers in finding moves in unknown positions is wrong

Your logic is flawed. FRC is _not_ chess without book. Much of the knowledege
a player has about opening strategy is not applicable.
Let´s take this start position:

[D]rnbqkbnr/1ppppppp/p7/8/8/P7/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2

I say _strong_ humans would find better moves on average than strong programs
here.

so if the
>opening is good against computers because computers blunder after 2.Qh5 with
>black then I see no reason to think that humans are not going to blunder after
>the same move.

The discussion is not about humans anyway.

Michael

>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.