Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:10:58 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 07:11:10, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 25, 2001 at 04:57:00, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>My dad had discovered that stonewall was good against the computer, about ten >>years ago and showed me how to play that opening three years ago, when i started >>playing chess (i have always known the moves, but never taken the game too >>seriously until 3 yrs ago) and i used to beat up chessmaster 5500 so bad with >>that opening. >>I think that almost all programs have anti stonewall opening books or knowledge >>after the Kramnik beating of Junior, but i think it is strange that Kramnik >>openly admits that he needs anti prog play in order to win and he avoids main >>lines because ^because to go for the main lines against the computer makes no >>sense at all – you simply forget something and the computer never does this at >>all. ^ > >I don't see why that is strange at all. Like in every other chess game, or so I >presume, the objective is to maximize your advantages and avoid known >disadvantages. In that light it would be considerable risk factor to play long >and complicated variations based on memory. Mainly because comps are less >susceptible to "read error" :-). The same is true of avoiding long calculations >in positions with a lot of possible lines. In my opinion the term "Anti-computer >play" is nonsenscial. If you have information about the opponent, you'll try to >exploit it, whether it be a human or silicon opponent. Chess is an anti-opponent >game. > >Regards, >Mogens The only thing i found strange was kramnik was so open about it. Regards Jonas
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.