Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 11:36:49 06/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by blass uri on June 23, 1998 at 10:27:58: >your descreption in your homepage: >"In Other words Rebel(using anti-GM) does not need to know the sacrifice >is 100% correct for this position, Rebel smells the chance of an attack >and goes for it" >the example shows Rebel10(not using anti-GM) can miss Rxe6 >assuming I do not have a long time >Uri Yes and no, it depends. The anti-GM style is not about tactics. The given position from my home page is just an example to show what anti-GM is able to. To pick a "good" example a tactical position is usually much more self-explaining than a quiet position. An example of a more quiet position... r2qkbnr/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4p3/3pP3/5BNP/PPPP1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b BR .. .. BQ BK BB BN BR BP BP .. BN .. BP BP BP .. .. BP .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. BP .. .. .. .. .. .. BP WP .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. WB WN WP WP WP WP WP .. WP WP .. WR .. WB WQ .. WR WK .. 01:26 09.36 0.00 g8-f6 d2-d3 d7-c5 f3-g4 d8-b6 (R10) 00:48 09.36 0.07 d4-d3 b2-b3 d3-c2 d1-c2 d7-c5 (R10 + anti-GM) The above is a game fragment of one of Rebel's games at Aegon 1989. Rebel then played the (IMO) ugly 1..d3 Of course the move has advantages but personally I clearly prefer the quiet 1..Nf6 (do not attack while you are behind in development) Rebel since 1989 has always been in love with this 1..d3 move. Only after a deeper search Rebel switches to 1..Nf6 However Rebel10 using anti-GM will deepen its love for 1..d3 even more and never will switch to 1..Nf6 as it fits in the principals of the anti-GM style. I guess I have to live with it. I am curious what other programs play. - Ed -
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.