Author: odell hall
Date: 21:10:46 07/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2001 at 20:13:10, Mark Young wrote: >On July 05, 2001 at 18:07:27, odell hall wrote: > >>On July 05, 2001 at 17:54:53, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Hi Odell: >>>Although I cannot care less about anticomputer strategies because I purchase >>>chess programs to plays CHESS, not to apply some kind of recipe to win a game >>>similar to chess, I know that the so called anticomputer strategy consist in >>>blocking the center, foster a close position everywhere except in the king side >>>and in that sector to push an slow attack on the computer king. All this can be >>>got with some specific openings, Colle system by example. >>>For me all that is sheer nosense. Which is the need to beat the beast using, for >>>that, a narrow technique that neccesarily rest pleasure and variety to the game? >>>I can understand a player, in a tourn, looking for specific ways to win his >>>opponents, but in an isolated and unimportant game played for fun, it is self >>>defeating, a system to substract the very reason you got a program. >>>Why? >>>Because you bought it to play and get fun or you bought to train for getting a >>>best play againts human, so again you need to play real, clasic chess, no >>>anticomputer recipes. >>>Well, there is people for any kind of tastes... >>>fernando.] >> >> >>Hi Ferando >> >> >> I like you play normal chess, i wouldn't begin to know what anti-computer chess >>is, or how to apply it, i think it is easier to say then to do, i think only the >>supergrandmasters have enough understanding about chess to really apply these >>strategies succesffully, and i am not sure of that since Deep fritz and deep >>juniors results at dormund. > >You are correct that using anti-computer strategies is now easier to say then to >do. Most times employing anti-computer strategies from on objective point of >view, the human players has the worst position for some part of the game. That >is the danger, if the computer finds the correct way to play the position the >results can be disastrous for the human. This is why knowing the opening book of >the program, and the program being played is such an advantage for the human >side. As all this can be worked out without danger of surprizes from the >computer. > >I will show how one form of anti-computer play worked out well for the human >side. >since you don't know what anti-computer play looks like. > >[Event "Chess Meeting 2000 Super"] >[Site "Dortmund"] >[Date "2000.07.15"] >[Round "8"] >[White "Junior 6"] >[Black "Piket, Jeroen"] >[Result "0-1"] >[ECO "B15"] >[BlackElo "2649"] >[PlyCount "68"] >[EventDate "2000.07.07"] > >1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. h3 a6 6. Bf4 Nf6 7. e5 Nfd7 8. Qd2 e6 >9. Bg5 Qb6 10. O-O-O h6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. h4 b5 13. Bf4 Nb6 14. a3 N8d7 15. Kb1 >a5 16. Na2 Qa7 17. g4 Bf8 18. c3 Ba6 19. Qe1 Nc4 20. Bd2 Be7 21. Nc1 Ndb6 22. >h5 g5 23. Na2 Kd7 24. Bc1 Rhb8 25. Ka1 b4 26. Nd2 Nxd2 27. Bxd2 Bxf1 28. Rxf1 >Nc4 29. Rb1 b3 30. Nc1 Bxa3 31. Qd1 Qb6 32. bxa3 b2+ 33. Ka2 bxc1=N+ 34. Qxc1 >Qxb1+ 0-1 yes i know the strategy exist, but what i am saying is can joroem piket repeat this everytime????, i don't it, this is one of the few wins out of many that humans have won against computers in the last five years, anti computer chess is not something you can , do at will, turn it on, or turn it off, i doubt that picket could win like this conisistently.
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.