Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 05:50:20 12/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2005 at 06:56:55, Albert Silver wrote: >>>Hi Michael, >>> >>>maybe that you do not like many positions personally. But that is not the point. >> >>No, there are definitely many lines a master would never play. >> >>Michael > >I haven't looked at the positions, so won't comment on them. > >The fact is that players of ALL levels, the majority of them (99% and more) who >are not 2200+ players, will be analyzing and going over their games with the >engines. Since they aren't masters, the positions they analyze are those from >their non-master openings. That actually means that it far more sense to see how >well the engines analyze these non-master positions than the latest wrinkle of >Sicilian theory at move 22, which a very small minority of the players will be >playing. I'm sorry, the discussion is not about analysis. It is about test games. If you test with unbalanced positions or book lines the weaker engine might score 1/2 or 0.5/2 instead of 0/2. Michael >Just because the Closed Sicilian, King's Indian Attack, or the Colle Btw, these are all openings which were played by master players. Nobody would play this position with white [D]rnbqk1nr/pp2ppbp/3p2p1/2p5/2P1PP2/3P3P/PP4P1/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 5 or this position with black [D]r1bqkbnr/pp3ppp/2npp3/2p5/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5 are >uncommon or rare at master and above level, doesn't mean they are played >infrequently, and if the engines can't help the <2000 players find great moves >in them, then their usefulness as an analytical engine is severely reduced IMO. > > Albert
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.