Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:22:34 07/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2001 at 09:46:58, Dan Andersson wrote: >Am I to understand that he has playe many Classical timecontrol games against >Crafty? Or draw some conclusions of blitz and bullet time control games? IMO, >you are reaching a bit with this argument. But you are probably right that he >plays his own game first and foremost. > >Regards Dan Andersson He has played some, yes. however, the point here is that if you look at _all_ of his games vs crafty, he plays classical chess, not anti-computer chess as practiced by some. I don't think it matters at all whether the time controls are bullet, blitz or standard, in that context. He will have difficulty at any time control if he plays the board and not the opponent. The main problem right now is that computers are (as they always have been) mainly a "novelty" to any strong player. They don't see them very often in real events, so they really don't care what it takes to beat them. They don't practice anti-computer chess against them, because that doesn't help them with their normal game one bit. And until they _care_ about the computers, they are probably not going to study them very carefully. Roman, for example, is a very dangerous computer opponent, because he understands them. He cares, not because he wants to be able to beat them in tournaments (because he won't encounter them in rated FIDE events) but because he is simply interested in finding their weaknesses, as something a GM might do. If computers were allowed into FIDE events, you would find a lot of GMs suddenly taking notice, comparing notes, finding weaknesses, finding anti-computer styles, and doing a lot better. But unless FIDE rules are changed, this isn't going to happen. In the 1970's and early 80's Cray Blitz (and blitz, its predecessor) played in lots of human events. no longer, as almost every tournament that is advertised has a (NC) qualifier (no computers). If computers don't affect tournament results, then they are not something to study very much. I would expect a GM to be far more interested in studying Kramnik, Kasparov, Shirov, Leko, etc, because they _know_ they will see those players at big tournaments. Computers? no... So as long as we are "excluded" then these "good results" won't really mean a lot, since we are basically being "ignored" until game-time. GM players are horribly dangerous when they take notice of you. :)
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.