Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:27:08 02/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2002 at 11:10:43, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >On February 20, 2002 at 20:25:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 20, 2002 at 14:18:26, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2002 at 13:14:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 19, 2002 at 20:19:59, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 18, 2002 at 18:40:18, Frank Nelson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I tried fireside.anti-computer strategy and got buried by Hiarcs 7.32! >>>>>>I used f4-e3-d4-c3 formation only to watch Hiarcs open it up like a knife >>>>>>to a watermelon. I had a book once which said that studying the games of >>>>>>David Bronstein vs. computers was the right direction for anti-computers. >>>>>>I think that a person has to use his own common sense when playing against a >>>>>>computer. Computers don't get tired unless they are running on batteries >>>>>>and is usually good at forcing a desirable tactical variation. I think that most >>>>>>people play well when the opening is over then start to tire move-by-move and >>>>>>then blunder in a level position. The computer of course then take the >>>>>>initiative until it leads to a + - ! If anyone have some original anti-computer >>>>>>strategy please post to this CCC newsgroup. Thanks in advance. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ljubomir Nelson >>>>>Given the strength of current programs there is no such thing anymore.Rebel is >>>>>eating VanWely alive .Maybe this was true 10 years.If you are not a GM you >>>>>dont have a chance against a program >>>> >>>>Loek is eating rebel alive. he wanted to win first game a bit too soon >>>>and did a very dubious king walk. >>>> >>>>then he lost because he wanted to win. Rebel nowhere had real chances >>>>in both games till Loek blundered in game 1 somewhere near the end of >>>>the game. >>>Yes but if Human GM's did not make any mistakes ;they would be playing perfect >>>chess (which we know they do not.) >> >>but this kingwalk was 2400 level, not 2700. loek is toying with the thing >>and still winning. >After todays game the above statement does not hold water anymore. All it really shows (today's game) is what can happen if the GM is careless and lets the game get out of control before he notices. Rebel played well. Van Wely was careless. With a predictable outcome. I have seen this happen before. After yesterday his confidence was high. Too high. And he can't afford to give the machine _anything_ yet he gave it everything...
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.