Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 09:05:35 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 11:18:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >You really didn't hold anything back there, did you? I think Jorge might have >had an epileptic attack after reading your post :) I hope not -- I really didn't mean to come across as too aggressive-sounding. :-) I have nothing against Jorge; in fact I am very grateful towards him for being the first person to take any interest in my FRC engine. But I find it hard to understand why people find FRC so attractive, and I get a bit provoked when people talk about the "need" for FRC with no other justification than that computers are good at remembering opening lines. >I haven't spent very much time studying openings either. I think you can get up >to maybe 2000 rated without a lot of openings, but at that point its an absolute >must. It depends on how you define "a lot" of openings, but I think it is possible to get much further than 2000 without spending enormous amounts of time memorizing opening lines. I'd say 2300 at least, and there are even players like Alexander Morozovich who manage to reach the world elite while playing mostly offbeat lines. There are plenty of sound and promising alternatives to the main lines. If you're afraid of the Najdorf Sicilian, why not play something like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. b3? Theoretically it is possible that 3. b3 is a tiny bit less promising than 3. d4, but I think the difference is small enough not to matter below IM level. >And even if you don't spend the time studying the theory itself, you >still need to know the standard plans for each side in each opening. True, but this is something you gain automatically by studying GM games, which all ambitious players should do anyway. >But I agree, FRC is one of the most boring chess variants out there. >Capablanca/Gothic Chess looks much more interesting; I have never looked at >hexagonal chess. One of the weaknesses of classical chess (IMHO, of course) is the small number of major pieces. Games like Capablanca/Gothic chess offer better possibilities for brilliant attacking chess, because you can sacrifice a bigger amount of material and still have enough left to complete a mating attack. Hexagonal chess has a similar advantage, there are no extra pieces (except a third bishop for each side), but the existing pieces are more powerful on the hexagonal board. >However, I really see no need to alter the game of chess just >because computers are good at it. I play humans, and we are both a *long* way >from mastering the game. In fact, I think that chess as a game is beyond the >ability of humans to master. Even Kasparov makes at least 1 mistake per game. I agree. >P.S. If I ever get the urge to switch boardgames, I'd much rather try Go over a >chess variant. But I have invested so much time into regular chess that I >probably never will. Yes, I also prefer Go over all chess variants. But playing a game is not the same as programming it. Go is simply too difficult to program for me at the moment. Tord
This page took 0.01 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.