Author: Eran
Date: 04:53:41 06/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1998 at 03:00:38, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 - I may have a hard time understanding the anti-GM clearly. Is the purpose of anti-GM simply to find the same move in a much shorter time? Is it appropriate for fast games against grandmasters only? Is that all? Eran
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.