Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:00:38 06/25/98
Bob wrote... >don't think there is any controversy here at all. Rxe6 loses. It will >lose against a computer. It will lose against a GM. It will lose against an >IM. Who cares if it wins against masters. We can already do that without >tossing material out the window... and self-attacking... Eran wrote... >So, why does Ed Schroder think anti-grandmaster moves are a little better such >as the move Rxe6? Ed is one of the best chess programmers in the world, and I >am still wondering why your saying is very different from what Ed thinks.... Don wrote... >Ed is not a Grandmaster, only a "top computer chess programmer." >He could be wrong or the others could be wrong about that specific >position. I don't think I managed to make my point but I don't give up that easy. About Rxe6 I like to quote myself... Whatever the discussion if Rxe6 is a good or bad move IN THE END (for this position) is *not* important. What *is* important is that white is a pawn down. For that white has compensation as the black position is under great pressure. If black is able to defend and escape from white's attack black ends up with a pawn up which will give black good winning chances. Rebel10 with anti-GM plays Rxe6 and I am very pleased with it. Taking into consideration that white is a pawn down and the white attack must go on by all means because of that, Rxe6 will give any GM a very hard time especially on short time controls and that's exactly *one* of the goals of anti-GM. Maybe(?) Rxe6 is not the best move playing against another computer and Qd3 is simply better, but it is my opinion that Qd3 against any GM is no option at all. I am still stand behind the Rxe6 principal. The fact Ferret and Crafty played the game after 1.Rxe6 fxe6 is not very convincing to claim Rxe6 loses. Next, *IF* playing the position by 2 computers is a topic then it should ALSO be played from the start position. After all white is a pawn down. If black is able to defend he simply will win the game *TOO*. I picked another example to prove my point. Also a tactical one for reasons of clearness. Rebel10 anti-GM is NOT about tactics but sometimes it certainly has some nice side effects. I deliberately do not pick a positional example (although I personally believe they are MUCH more important) because you can always argue about the moves as we all have our different taste. So a pure tactical example and this time there can be no confusion about the key-move. r2q1rk1/pbppn1p1/1p2p1Bp/7Q/3PN3/b1P5/P1PB1PPP/1R2R1K1 w - - bm Bxh6; This game fragment comes from the WCM Munich 1993, Hiarcs - Genius. Rebel10 (without anti-GM) finds Bxh6 on ply-7, score 1.19, time 0:27 Rebel10 (with anti-GM) finds Bxh6 on ply-5, score 1.23, time 0:01 Note that anti-GM is not about tactical tricks like extra extensions, just some specific positional knowledge. - Ed -
This page took 0.01 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.