Author: Mike Taylor
Date: 05:48:11 05/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2004 at 22:55:06, Robin Smith wrote: >On May 27, 2004 at 15:09:29, Mike Taylor wrote: > >>Kingside attacks use to be an effective weapon against computer chess programs, >>but that issue has been correct in the top programs. > >It is much better than in the past, no doubt, but it is also certainly not >completely corrected. > >>Would u please provide an >>example of a game u have played against a recently released top chess program ? > >Although I use computer programs extensively for analysis, I don't play against >them. Well, if you do not play against, making the argument that you know the ways to beat them, seems to put your book in the 'meaningless' category. My theory on beating computer chess is as follows: 1) Know the opening better than the opening book author; 2) Forget about trying to out play the computer in the endgame, with Nalimov it is impossible; and 3) Long range strategy will work, forget tactics computers are to strong now. And if I did, without the aid of a top program to assist me I make far too >many tactical oversights and I would lose almost all the time. Yup, join the club -:) >I could give you examples of postal games where I am pretty sure my opponent was >in fact just a recently released program, but in these cases I was also using >silicon assistance. I just try to do it more creatively and effectively than >most. Everyone that plays postal chess uses computers, that is what computer chess is suppose to be about "Perfect Chess". > >Robin Robin no offence but after what you have just stated I think your book is another "How To Improve Your Chess" book, rather than "How To Defeat The Silicon Monster" book. Cordially
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.