Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 05:33:48 09/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2003 at 06:32:17, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 19, 2003 at 03:11:37, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>
>>On September 18, 2003 at 10:51:42, Jonas Soderberg wrote:
>>
>>>Hi
>>>In my opinion there are several programs but for mainly two different purposes.
>>>
>>>1) Playing against
>>>Here I find Delfi and Rebel to be very attractive in playing style when you set
>>>the strength to a suitable ELO. They are playing rather realistic (human) even
>>>at my level ;-)
>>>
>>
>>I dont agree at all. Delfi does dont play rather realistic human chess IMO.
>>Just tested it a bit. Delfi played with its own small book.
>>
>>[Event "Blitz:10'+5""]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "2003.09.19"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "Drexel"]
>>[Black "Delfi 4.2 ELO_STRENGTH=1750"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "D05"]
>>[PlyCount "37"]
>>[TimeControl "600+5"]
>>
>>{64MB, Empty.ctg, ATHLON2000} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. c3 e6 5. Nbd2 d5
>>6.Bd3 c4 7. Bc2 Bd6 8. e4 Nxe4 9. Nxe4 dxe4 10. Bxe4 Bd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Re1 Qb6
>>13. Ng5 h6 14. Nh7 Rfd8 15. Bxh6 gxh6 16. Qg4+ Kh8 17. Qh5 Nxd4 18. Qxh6 Nb5
>>19. Nf6# 1-0
>>
>>I played the Colle because it is rather popular at this level.
>>1750 humans have already pretty much chess knowledge. I dont expect a 1750 in my
>>country to play 6...c4.
>
>I suspect it is dependent on the human.
>I think that I am better than 1750 of your country(I have israeli rating 1997)
>and I do not see a big problem with c4(but I also do not play this opening).
I didnt say there is a big problem with c4. It is just very unusual and marked
as mistake in the books. A move that is considered bad (because it leads to a
difficult position to handle) for humans is not necessarily a mistake from a
computer point of view.
>
>Of course Nxd4 is a tactical mistake and I do not see more than a draw for black
>after a move like Kg7
Maybe Fritz does not see more than a draw:
18.Qg4+ Kh8 19.Qh4 +-
15...gxh6 was decisive mistake, btw
>
>I agree that delfi does not play like humans if it play that blunder.
>Humans do tactical mistakes but different mistakes and even 1600 players do not
>miss an obvious threat like Qxh6 and Nf6# even in 600+5 time control.
>
>
>>I also dont expect a 1750 to play moves like 12...Qb6 and especially 17...Nxd4
>>and finally it missed am mate in one.
>
>I do not see that 12...Qb6 as a big mistake but I agree that I expect humans to
>be afraid to play it.
>
>Movei prefers Qc7
>
>
>>
>>Playing against Computers is definitely not a good way to improve your chess.
>
>I guess that it is dependent on your level.
>
>tactics is important in chess and I guess that most players at the level of 1750
>can get at least 200 elo better by only avoiding tactical mistakes that chess
>programs can avoid in less than a second.
That insight does not help the 1750 player much.
He wants to know how he can learn to avoid tactical mistakes.
>
>I believe that big part of the improvement that I made from 1600 to 2000 is
>by learning to pay attention to the next move of myself or the next move of the
>opponent.
>
>I found at the time that I was near 1600 that often tactical or positional
>mistakes that I did were because of not paying attention to the next move of
>myself or of my opponent and one mistake may be enough to change the result of
>the game.
>
>I do not think that opening theory is very important and I guess that a strong
>player may beat 2000 players most of the time even with 1.e4 a5
>
>It may be interesting to do a tournament with prizes of 2600 players against
>2300 players when the 2600 players start with something strange like 1.e4 a5
>or something similiar and to prevent special preperation against specific bad
>lines the 2600 players should not know the opening that they are going to play
>and they may also get something bad after 2 moves when the first move make sense
>like 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a5
I think you underestimate those 2300 players who play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 slightly.
They would smash the 2600 players in most of the cases.
Michael
>
>The organizers may choose random bad line(of course they cannot know that the
>opponent is going to play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 but they can have a bad line
>also against 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 and other options.
>
>Maybe I am wrong but I believe that there are going to be 2600 players who score
>more than 50% even when they have to play with black with random move that does
>not lose material in the first or second move and not with theoretical lines.
>
>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.