Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 01:04:04 07/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 1998 at 21:29:35, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>Wish we knew more about why he adopted a more open and "normal" >>>>style of play against Rebel, while simply strangling Fritz... > >>>Remember "anti-GM"? > >>>Perhaps Anand was forced too? > >>>- Ed - > >>Nice marketing. :) > >>But anti-GM didn't make him castle queen-side in the first long game. He >>did that on his own. I don't think an "anti-GM" strategy exists, much less >>one that can force a GM to do something he doesn't want to do... > >Why should Anand play moves that are not optimal in his opinion? >Quite dangerous IMO. > that is the $64,000 question, IMHO. *why* indeed. >I think you should re-read the goals of anti-GM, the why's, its birth. > >In the past at AEGON I have seen Rebel losing against grandmasters >without any chance. After such a game it is very frustrating to realize >your program didn't have just ONE little chance on counter play. I agree... this happened to Fritz... > >anti-GM is about to deal with this problem. I don't know how good it is >as 8 games is not much but in most of the 8 games it was Rebel who >took the initiative which pleased me very much as this exactly is one >of the goals of anti-GM. > >- Ed - you certainly had the initiative... but game 7 was an interesting one, because here Anand seemed to abandon his strangulation strategy that worked so well against Fritz. I don't know of many players that would castle opposite in a serious game against a computer, on general principles if nothing else...
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.