Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:12:59 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 07:59:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 00:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 22:55:44, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2002 at 22:45:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>It is going to be a queen-odds game most every time, otherwise you have to make >>>>_sure_ you never leave your queen open to a two-mover. IE I play Ne6 and don't >>>>let you play dxe6 in this case and instantly play Nxd8 and the game is basically >>>>over. There are lots of such "plans" to deal with. I think a double move once >>>>in a game is enough to offset at _least_ a 500 point rating difference. >>> >>>It sounds like you are assuming that your opponent won't know (or will >>>momentarilly forget) about this added double move rule. IE your opponent isn't >>>going to let you play Ne6, and then say, "oh, I completely forgot about the >>>double move rule." He would probably prevent you from playing Ne6 in the first >>>place, since he would have calculated ahead and known that if you get to play >>>Ne6, he loses his queen. >>> >> >>What I am saying is that it adds an impossible dimension to the game. You have >>to make moves that allow _no_ two-move tricks. IE two-move checkmates, or >>two-move tricks to win big material, or promote a pawn, or whatever... >> >>>I think it's a big advantage, but I think if you played 100 games between two >>>computer opponents, both of which were knowledgable about the double move >>>possibility, it wouldn't turn out 100-0, but I may be underestimating the >>>advantage. >> >>You should try it. I used to play several variants on this theme at chess >>club meetings. For example "may I". It is a terrible advantage. > > >Bob, I think that actually the GM could (if they wished, but of course they >don't in a PR show for million dollars) almost 'zugzwang' a DEEP FRITZ. Feist >was really believing that his high selectivity could bring advantages because >the depth should be deep enough. But I am saying that good GM would find out the >solution what the machine had "forgotten" to analyse. And therefore such >nonsense is overall spoken good, for the majoritya of players, amateurs of >course, but the best players have the killer instinct to find out the exceptions >of the game. > >Rolf Tueschen Yes, but here is where you are wrong: You are talking about a particular _implementation_ of an idea (null-move search as implented in Fritz.) An "implementation" can be bad, while the original idea is good. I can think of automobiles that fit this category. :) But don't confuse "theoretical idea" with "practical implementation".
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.