Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: GM Banikas vs Deep Junior - Deep Junior wins Game 3 now 1.5 to 1.5

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 17:25:26 06/14/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 14, 2001 at 19:50:40, Uri Blass wrote:

>On June 14, 2001 at 14:50:25, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>Why are some GM's unwilling to play anticomputer chess?  These games are the
>>perfect example of how not to play a computer.  Lots of open lanes, no
>>anti-computer methods employed.
>
>I disagree.
>
>The GM won a game with similiar style of play.
>The GM traded pieces in order to go for the endgame and it is one of the
>anti-computer ideas.
>
>Game 3:
>The GM lost because of blundering in the endgame and not because of blundering
>in the middle game.
>
>[D]8/4k2p/4pp2/r5P1/pR3P1P/P5K1/8/8 b - - 0 1
>
>The GM had chances to draw but blundered by Kf7 instead of Ra7 and lost a pawn.
>
>
>Game 4:
>The GM had a relatively closed position but the position was not good for him
>
>[D]bb2r3/r5kp/2p3p1/p1Rp1p2/Pp1P1P2/1P2P1NB/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - 0 1

This seems more like a "bad bishop" idea that he is working for than working for
a closed position.  There are gaps in this defense that can be opened without
trouble.  It's better than a wide open formation (I must admit).  My notion of a
good closed position is one where it takes 8 or 9 moves for something
significant to happen.  In that sort of position, the human has a clear
advantage over the machine.

>Every time humans lose against computers they are criticized for not playing
>anti-computer methods.
>
>I do not like it.
>
>If you criticize the GM for not playing anti-computer methods then it is better
>if you say which moves were practically not good against a computer(otherwise
>your words are not constructive)

Actually, I cannot possibly give him advice on what to do.  Only on what not to
do.  Since any plan I formulate would be instantly improved by a GM, it is
pointless for me to say what I think he did wrong with some particular move
(unless it is a blunder, in which case he found out already anyway).  On the
other hand, I think that "playing against a machine like playing against a
person" is a bad idea.  In fact, I don't think it works.  Unless you have a good
defensive style by nature and like closed positions naturally.  There are some
players like that, of course.



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.