Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 23:37:17 04/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2002 at 23:08:43, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> is the point with these games. We have no commercial interests >> whatsoever - nor does E want to find special anticomputer strategies. > >Well, I would like to see some very strong players develop some real >computer killer strategies. The current state of the anticomputer >chess (blocked/tame positions) is just a tip of the iceberg. The >large opening books and seemingly strategic moves (but made for >the wrong reason, e.g. due to some entirely accidental fraction >of an evaulation point) tend to create illusion of a human opponent >and human understanding behind the moves. This tricks the human >player into incorrectly modelling his opponent, blocking him >psychologically from considering potential killer lines which >against another strong human would seem ridiculously naive or >strategically suicidal. Yes, and I guess there is a difference if you play a computer and want to win the game with all means - or if you play to test your normal openings and your normal play. I can also add that after four 120'games vs Gambit Tiger, the main impression from IM Berg was that "he doesn't understand the play with opposite colored bishops at all." Not specifically meaning a clear cut ending. Sune
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.