Author: Pierre Chevalier
Date: 10:49:25 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2003 at 04:22:49, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 02, 2003 at 22:47:33, Pierre Chevalier wrote: > >>On November 02, 2003 at 15:26:17, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On November 02, 2003 at 14:56:57, Pierre Chevalier wrote: >>> >>>>On November 02, 2003 at 09:55:08, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>Without its good opening book, Junior 8 is sometimes playing like >>>>>a toothless tiger. Often seen in our NBE 2003 tournament, please >>>>>refer to our homepage "Kurt & Rolf Chess", section NBE 2003 >>>>>http://www.utzingerkurt.com Below a commented example. >>>>>Kurt >>>>> >>>>You are putting Junior at a disadvantage by asking it to play 1 c4. >>>>Junior is designed to play 1 e4. There is a huge difference between the moves. >>>>1 e4 leads to more tactical situations in which Junior excels. >>> >>> Don't you think that 1.e4 is in principle for all computer >>> programs the best choice? >>> Kurt >>Yes I think 1 e4 is the best choice for a program. >>1 e4 leads to tactics which computers handle well. > >I think that you forget that the testing is comp-comp and not comp-human. This forum is more than just SSDF testing. >Another point is that I do not understand why people do comparison to humans. What topic could possibly be more important than humans versus computers in competitive chess? ( I know that will get answered. ) >You could also say: >"I think that 1.d4 is the best choice for a human. >1.e4 leads to tactical positions which humans do not know to play well." > >Uri Yes those statements are true!
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.