Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:00:10 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 :) > >Brian humans are good at positional chess, machines at tactics. there are two forms of anti-computer chess: one is to more or less bet on the fact that machines are bad in certain positions and play "incorrect" chess as a result (see games of eduard nemeth, and to a lesser extent, some great anti-computer games by GMs like one vanWely - rebel game where he plays a move and says of his Bg3-move: "i would never play this against a human, but i knew the computer would play a bad move after this"). if you were to play this form of chess against a really good player, it would backfire. unlike the second method, which treats the computers with more respect: you try to avoid the tactics but play normal chess. you would do this by playing decent but boring openings (IM hug - shredder from the recent switzerland-shredder match is a great example, shredder was outplayed by the IM, but a tactical trick saved it). kasparov tried something like this against deep blue but failed with it. he's just the wrong type of player to play this kind of chess. i think this is the best chance for humans to win matches against the machines, but: this form of chess has to be the type of chess the human plays all the time. kramnik will probably use this approach against deep fritz. game 2 of christiansen - CM is a good example of what to avoid: white played e4-d5 on about move 6, and you can be sure that christiansen didn't miss the Nxe4 thing, but rather thought it was ok for white. it's a very complicated position, and that is what you don't want to do against the computer - *even if it is correct in principle*. aloha martin
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.