Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 10:43:18 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 12:58:47, Roy Eassa wrote: >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. A good person to ask this question to is Dann Corbit who is the founder of the C.A.P. project. This project has been in existence for about 4 years ( I think). What we do is analyze various chess positions by computers and Dann has been gathering all this info into a large database. I know that one of the projects Dann launched some time ago was analyzing standard openings. HTH, Les
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.