Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:19:27 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 12:05:35, Tord Romstad wrote: >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 Did you try to program go? If not then how can you know it? Even if you know nothing about go except the rules you can write a program that plays go and later test possible changes to see if they make the program better. 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.