Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:41:18 07/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2001 at 07:05:17, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 04, 2001 at 05:27:08, martin fierz wrote: > >>"cheat" is the wrong word. trying to force the own style of play on your >>opponent is common practice among humans. think about how kramnik played against >>kasparov. or how people tried to avoid all complications when playing tal. >> >>cheers >> martin > >The "anticomputer" techniques can be IMO divided in 2 categories (defense or >attack): > >1) Keeping closed the position to avoid strong tactics exploits by the machine, >using for example walls of pawns. > >2) Massive attacks to the king with sacrifice involved, like the Dutch >Stonewall. > > >Both of these are not very effective against top programs of the new generation, >because a lot of weaknesses in that sense have been fixed. >In any case ,especially the second type of technique, is IMO a kind of tentative >to "cheat" the computer. > >Regards. what - playing against a known weakness of the opponent is 'cheating'?? look up the word in your dictionary! it's what everybody does, *including* all programs, which seek to open the position - chess is a battle of wits, and choosing the battleground is part of it! cheers martin
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.