Author: Hermano Ecuadoriano
Date: 19:17:43 12/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2000 at 20:28:34, Garry Evans wrote: >I don't know if I am the only one who feels this way, but I think it is very >boring to play CM8000, I would much rather watch it play against other >computers. Against me there is no spectacular tactics, or brilliant sacrifices, >only snatching a pawn here and there. This is not to say that I ever beat the >things i have a +0 -200 =2 against the predator. I much perfer the play of >fritz, rebel, or Shredder, however when it comes to watching a program play >other computers my favorite is Chessmaster without doubt. Can someone explain >why chessmaster only does what's neccessary to beat me, but when it plays other >computers it suddenly becomes paul morphy and tal combined? It does not need deep ideas in order to win your pawns... And when loose pawns can be had, I don't think a human or a computer should turn them down, JUST for a fancy attack. Its computer opponents present deeper obstacles to the winning of material, so the tension and complexity on the board increase until something explodes. It catches my attention when someone says "boring" in this context. Doing nothing more than that which is necessary to win is a classical virtue. This is how I interpreted Karpov's play, which some said was boring. Such an opponent spends each game teaching you why you are losing. This is worth a great deal, and is why we should all own more than one program. Of course, the level can be turned down until the lessons are comprehensible. In contrast, a more extroverted program might JUST dismember you. I don't need that. I played in some tournaments in which a nice and memorable person, the late I.M. Boris Kogan also played. He was about 2400-2500, and most of his local competitors were 2000-2200, so they deserved some respect from him. It was striking how, while intending to win, he would enter fairly simple positions. I remember people whispering "So and so has a draw". But I.M. Kogan could see the beautiful and mysterious (and apparently simple) winning potential in the positions, and this is what made him a titled player, instead of a mere expert. I went to his home for a lesson, and in our first training game (before he realized how badly I play), he treated me with this respect. He won as usual in the ending, after I had thought for some moves that I was doing well. It seemed to me that the Richard Lang programs Mondial (Dallas), Berlin, and Genius 2 had this property of trying to defeat me in an orderly and logical way. I say again that I think this is worth a great deal. If I were bored, while my opponent came and took my beloved pawns and won, I would consider it proof that the required stimulant did not reach my brain; If I had been aware that there were intricate problems to be solved, I suppose that I would have been aroused to solve them. Since I wasn't aroused, I must have been unaware of them. That's too bad. The game was a deep and satisfying novel, but I was only skimming, as though it were a comic book...
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.