Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 09:58:47 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 12:51:34, Peter Hegger wrote: >Hello, >For the average patzer like myself I'm sure the QGD, QGA, etc... will endure as >long as we do. >But in top level chess every nuance and permutation of an opening system could >mean its eventual demise. >My question therefore is: have any openings been refuted by computers to the >point where top level players will not adopt them anymore? I'm not the big expert here, but I have two thoughts on this topic. First, most of the time the strong chess programs play with opening books, so they are not doing algorithmic calculation/evaluation of positions until well into the opening. I think that's because the openings are sophisticated in ways computers are not, and practice has shown that they do very badly without the help of books. Thus they are not given the chance to refute known openings. The second thought is that they probably have refuted some sub-sub-variations of some openings, although I can't come up with a specific example. But they certainly haven't refuted some commonly-played opening, like QGD or QGA, such that a move that was commonly played as early as move 3 or 4 is now refuted.
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.