Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:01:26 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 08:27:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 13, 2002 at 18:15:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 13, 2002 at 12:46:37, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 13, 2002 at 10:47:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 12, 2002 at 21:34:43, Telmo Escobar wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 12, 2002 at 14:29:17, Louis Fagliano wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>He seems to have replaced John van der Wiel as the leading computer killer (at >>>>>>least on this board). Rebel managed to overcome van der Wiel's anti-computer >>>>>>chess style and beat him in a challenge match. Since Ed Schroeder has retired >>>>>>from playing challenge matches against humans, is there anyone with a copy of >>>>>>Rebel Century 4.0 and a fast computer (sorry, mine's only 500 MHz) and would >>>>>>want to challenge Mr. Nemeth to a match? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Try to win using his strategies and you'll see. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to meet Nemeth in the Fritz 7 server, to have him playing any of the >>>>>CB engines I have in my computer. >>>> >>>> >>>>You might be surprised. There was a player named "mercilous" on ICC that >>>>wrecked holy hell on _all_ programs a couple of years ago. >>> >>>You forget one important thing and that the programs of today have better >>>hardware and it make things harder for humans. >>> >>>Of course you can win after enough tries but this strategy is not going to work >>>in most of the cases and GM's are not going to try it when they know that they >>>may have maybe probability of 10% to win the machine and 90% to get problems. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Better hardware won't do a thing against "mercilous". He played 1 0, 2 0 and >>3 0 games. At those time controls, no hardware is fast enough to see that open- >>ing the file will get you mated. > >It is dependent on the position and the software. >I am also more interested in slower time control and not in 1 0 or 2 0 games. > So am I. I don't pay a lot of attention to "blitz" games. I haven't for several years now... >I do not like the solution of crafty because it means that the program is not >going to capture even in cases when it is good to capture. It depends. It has several "qualifications" that must be met. If the search can find a way to break one of the qualifications, it will not make the capture. And in cases where the capture is good, it generally means that the opponent has simply blundered anyway, if it isn't a real trojan-horse attack. Not capturing will probably not lose the game... > >I think that a better solution is to do special extensions in positions when the >trojan horse sacrifice is relevant. Not so easy. The capture _starts_ the variation. Now you have to recognize other features (queen on the board, can get to the h-file, program's king has castled, opponent's has not, opponent has a rook on the h-file or one can get there quickly, etc. You will be extending a _lot_ even in non-trojan positions. > >Uri
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.