Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:48:08 09/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2001 at 16:07:29, Bruce Moreland wrote: Yep nowadays most correspondence chess games are completely antipositional and tactics dominated by computers. Only world groups have a very high level from positional viewpoint. Not that the anti positional chess players are bad or something, they just need to calculate all moves very deeply to win a game, whereas a bit more chessknowledge inside the corr player would of course not give that much trouble. If you play anti positional, you are always asking for tactical trouble, so you need to calculate down your path way deeper than with more sound moves. I find this a very bad development in computerchess, but it never has been different. The only difference between now and 1990 when i played a bit of corr chess, is that refuting the anti positional play is a bit harder because of bigger tactical search depths from the programs. In netherlands we already have had more than one dutch champion who played the opening himself but all other moves were computer generated. I remember a guy called H H Hage where i played against whose old rebel version (chessmachine schroeder) of course missed the Qf3!! move which i have regurarly posted here. >On September 03, 2001 at 15:39:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>Here is one example of positional test from my game against >>the female world champion in correspondence games >>In this case I chose gandalf's move and Deep Fritz prefered the wrong >>Nxg4 even after many hours. > >I'm not trying to get you in trouble or give you a hard time, but is this a >common way of playing correspondence chess? Do the opponents know that they are >playing againt a computer? Do they care? > >bruce
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.