Author: Mark Rawlings
Date: 16:12:12 10/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
Stephen - I know you don't use computers in correspondence mathches, however, I get the idea that you aren't using computers to help you study, learn, practice, etc. Is that right? I would think today's strong programs and nice databases would be very helpful. Mark On October 26, 2000 at 18:55:28, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Jorge, > >Thanks for flattering me with this question. Thanks too for your kind attantion >to my match games, Jorge. The truth is that I'm totally incompetent to answer >this question since I know so little about chess engines. My only known >experience in playing against them is in my two 2-game matches versus Fritz 6a >and Nimzo 7.32. I write "known" because as a Correspondence Chess Master, I've >probably played against and defeated some computer-human teams without knowing >it. Meanwhile, I've never played OTB chess versus a computer, but my OTB skills >leave a great deal to be desired anyway. > >Personally, I'm a bit "gun-shy" of Nimzo 7.32's great tactical skills. If I knew >I was playing against it and could employ anti-computer strategies, I would >certainly do so, Jorge. We saw how it played strangely in closed positions (see >Ham-Nimzo 7.32). But, given open positions with lot's of heavy pieces (see Nimzo >7.32-Ham), that was my worst chess nightmare. As you will see from my >commentary, the computer operator mistakenly gave Nimzo's position to Fritz 6a >once, which found an inferior move to the one selected by Nimzo. In short, Nimo >7.32 has some big pluses and minuses. Therefore it can be defeated by playing to >its weakness. Nimzo 8 is apparently a "smarter" chess engine than version 7.32, >so I have a natural bias in favor of this product, but have never faced >it...yet. > >Meanwhile, Fritz 6a seems "smarter" than Nimzo 7.32 since it has played well in >technical positions. It also seems more consistent in it's play. But tactically, >I should have blown it off the board in Ham-Fritz 6a, but I got my move order >mixed up...a very human trait for this human. Now I'm grinding out a slight >edge. > >So based upon a far too small sample of only 4 games, Jorge, my perception (I >have no facts yet) is that Fritz 6a is more consistent and so more likely to do >well in the long run. But given a complex tactical position and 17-20 hours to >compute, my heavy favorite is Nimzo 7.32. > >I hope that made sense. ;) > >Stephen
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.