Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:55:06 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 14:19:13, Brian Thomas wrote: >The idea of playing anti-computer chess has come up over the weekend a number of >times (specifically with the CM9000 v Christianson match). > >I do understand the core meaning: but what specifically would this entail? Is >it a matter of finding a distinct positional weakness in the specific engine >(in, for example, The King) and exploiting it? Or more of a general strategy? >I imagine no 2 engines could be played the same way in this manner. > >I would think that trying just a "general" tactic would be too vague and lead to >a positional weakness. The only thing I saw that one may consider anti-computer >playing was, in the last Chessmaster game Sunday evening, the computer fought >very hard to hold onto its isolated pawn early on. This may be a weakness, but >how do you exploit it? Could Chessmaster have beaten Larry if it just let the >pawn go and worked better positionally? > >Looking more for general thoughts/opinions, I have mine :) http://www.angelfire.com/on/anticomputer/ Most basic themes involve something along these lines: 1. Make a closed position to buy time. Computers have a very tough time when there is no immediate pawn or piece to snack on. They sometimes move in a very aimless manner in closed positions. 2. Castle to the opposite side as your opponent and then start a pawn storm. 3. Move all your pieces over to the opponent's kingside for an all-out attack. This does not work as well as it used to, because programs are now a lot smarter about king safety. 4. Stonewall attack used to be pretty good. Not so much any more. Some programs detect it now.
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.