Author: Chuck
Date: 03:22:55 03/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 21:29:25, Matthew White wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 19:13:06, Jon Sveinsson wrote: > >>Any closed opening you can think of, hopefully. Seriousely, forget it. Downrate >>the strength in the software and try and find a level fitting and you should be >>fine. >I think they play piece gambits (like the Cochrane gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 >3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7), where active pawn play is essential even worse than >closed positions. Most engines have trouble taking advantage of the imbalances >created by gambits, especially dynamic imbalances. I've put engines in start >positions listed by NCO as advantage for white on a fairly long time control, >and white cannot see how to realize the advantage. It cannot overcome the >material deficit if it doesn't understand the purpose (i.e. the compensation it >receives) of the gambit. > >Regards, >Matt I would agree with your statement about gambits. If the program doesn't understand the gambit, it may have difficulty but these days programs are getting so good at defending difficult positions it is hard to take advantage of the lack of understanding. To venture two openings I always regarded as "anti-computer", I will throw out the Kings Indian Defense and the Ruy Lopez Marshall Attack. But here again, todays' systems are much improved at these openings which require detection of long-range threats. Chuck
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.