Author: odell hall
Date: 14:31:41 07/05/01
HI CCC On many occasions at this forum, i hear some say that the human lost because he or she, failed to employ some undefined Anti-Computer Chess Strategy. I think however such statements are very presumptous, I suppose that many of the people that make these claims cannot defeat the computers themselves, using any strategies, including anti-computer. If the human loses, then the excuse is always lack of anti- computer chess play. The problem with this line of thinking is that many of us ourselves don't really understand what anit-computer strategies are, ourselves, and would not recognize these strategies even if it were employed. For instance, Dr Hyatt is one of the number 1 people here who allegedly "understanding Anti-computer play" yet he admittedly never beats his own program???? IF such strategies actually reduced the strength of computers then wouldn't Dr, Hyaat be able to regulary defeat his program?? He cites Roman as an example of successful anti computer play, yet roman wins less then 50% of his games versus crafty. Personally i believe there are anti-computer strategies, but they work only in limited positions, And openings, a human cannot guarantee that the game will be steered always in the anti-computer position they desire. Which is why Anti-computer strategies as a whole have failed on the tournament level, computers are consistently scoring even better then their SSDF Rating suggest. Even those who are sopposed to really understand anti-computer Chess are losing, like van der weil, and also Roman. The most prominenet example being kasparov even after months of "TRAINING".
This page took 0.01 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.