Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 07:30:21 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 09:12:07, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 08:28:32, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 06:01:53, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>If you choose an opening that you know that the computer does not play well then >>>you play anti computer chess. >> >>And if you choose an opening that you know that Mr X does not play well/like, >>then you play anti Mr X chess. What exactly is the point? :) you can call it that way. You got the point I think :) >>Sargon > >The point is the position has to be handled by white in this spirit.it makes no >difference who is the opponent.The spirit of the position is the master of the >decisions and no psychological approach. > >If you play for example the nemeth-gambit it is right to say you play >anti-computerchess because you can´t play so against an human opponent in this >position and you know that you are playing not the best moves.But when you play >the best moves in a positional game you can´t say you play anti-computerchess.If >you do this you ignore the art of chess. I could use other definition of anticomputerchess than yours. If you don't let me do this you ignore the art of liberty, or whatever.
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.