Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:40:30 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 20:37:12, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 05, 2001 at 18:55:02, Dann Corbit wrote: > >[snip] > >>In that match, did the GM use anticomputer techniques or simply play whatever >>style was natural? I have found that some GM's are unbelievably, profoundly >>ignorant of anti-computer techniques (and others are very saavy to them). > >Dann, > >I have not done an in depth study (maybe you or Uri have) on this, but >from the few anti-computer games I have examined, it seems to me that >this works best for people who play that way (my normal style is >an anti-computer style or a quiet style). It seems that people that >just adopt this this style have less (but not zero) success. Again, this >may not be true, but I have also seen some pretty poor anti-computer >attempts (K v DB97 for example). Some just beat the programs by shear >will (Kramnik vs Deep Junior6). > >Also, in my limited exam on this, it seems to me that the anti-computer >strategy has changed. For example, just trade to an endgame does not seem >to work as well today and the Stonewall or KIA are less effective (though >still used with limited success). > >Any thoughts? > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson You can't "just adopt the style" and have it work. That is the problem. You have to first understand the weaknesses of the computer. That is why Roman is such a huge problem to computers. He knows and understands their weaknesses, and he is strong enough to play the kinds of openings that lead to positions that exploit those weaknesses. He can almost tell you , program by program, what it can and can't do. Which one values two bishops too much, which one values a bishop over a knight in the wrong positions too much. Which one doesn't understand simple endgame pawn structure (majorities, etc). The list goes on and on. So you first have to understand your opponent's weaknesses. Then understand how to exploit them (from practice hopefully). And only then do you try to play "anti-computer" systems. Some think you can just play d4, e3 and f4 and flail away. Not likely against mine. It has weaknesses. But that isn't one of them. Some hear "anti-computer" and think that is just a series of opening moves to block the position. That is _not_ what I (and others) are talking about. It isn't even close.
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.