Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 06:35:19 08/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2001 at 17:25:34, Peter Berger wrote: >On August 21, 2001 at 13:52:01, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>With French Winawer, I have seen quite a few short computer chess games, >>also often, losses by Yace. But I have also seen fast wins for Black. >>Chester expected 15. fxe5. I think, 15. Ng5 is already winning, but Yace could >>not see it yet in the game. Actually, the two moves were rather close in score, >>which also shows, that there can be quite some luck involved. >> >>Regards, >>Dieter > >You won't see the real problem with the Winawer against computers. > >The Winawer might or might not be a good opening against other silicon GMs - >this is probably mainly a book tuning issue or luck . I think if you avoid the >positions with the penetrating queen on g7,h7 this should be very playable >against computers. > >Problem is : all of them don't understand the positions resulting from the main >variations well. > >Against a strong human the Winawer is a very bad choice I am sure. Btw also >playing against it with white is a hard challenge for the same reasons. > >But the question which openings are a good choice for a computer seems to remain >open: there doesn't seem to be any publication about that. > >And even most of the professionals don't seem to do too well. > >Look at Maastricht and our world master . Round 1 and 3 showed Shredder playing >lines that should be very well known for not being suitable for a game against a >computer IMHO - and this was prepared by one of the world's leading experts .. > >The only ones with really good opening books seem to be Quest,Junior,Tiger,Rebel >and Diep ( this one looks very much improved to me) this time. > >The Crafty book looks miserable again ( sorry, no offense intended although it >probably will sound like that anyway) . The Ferret book doesn't impress much >either. > >It seems to be a trial and error issue though : at last most seem to have come >up with the Najdorf and the Semi-Slav ( although 1.d4 seems to be very uncommon >- why ? ) . > >Some personal observations ( I'd really like to discuss this but I don't expect >many answers ) : > >a.) Playing 1. ...e5 against 1. e4 will be good if White opts for the mainline >Ruy Lopez only - this is a bad line for a computer as the black play requires >only knowledge computers do have while doing well with White will either require >book tuning to the extreme or knowledge I haven't seen yet. Ruy Lopez is very wide, what kind of line you mean? Generally, it leads to some closed positions which would be bad for both sides. I see that the advantage that black has (being a computer) is that it does not hae the initiative, so computers are good defenders and can do well. White has to do something and generally are long term plans which computers struggle with. Is that what you mean? OTOH, Deep blue seemed to do a fine job against Kasparov with this... >b.) Many openings that look very promising in computer play are waiting for >discovery IMHO . Sveshnikov should be well for black in computer matches and how Fritz beat Deep Blue Jr with that! >about 1. e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3. Nd2(c3) de 4. Nxe4 Bf5 ? Computers don't seem to be >able to play this well with white but do very well with black. mmmhhh... It is because they can wait and counterattack? >I have searched the archives for every interesting idea about opening books >posted but the results are lame. In comp-comp matches, what happen if you prepare a huge book with an opening like 1.b4? I think is a good idea for an amateur program to play "anti-professional computer books" Regards, Miguel > >Why is this such a secret issue I ask myself ? > >Cheers. > >pete
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.