Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:01:35 05/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2005 at 16:45:24, Robert Hollay wrote: > I'm not a strong chess player myself and cannot find a satisfactory answer >to this question. > I was thought that so called "anti-chess or anticomp-chess" could be prevented >with just making some trifling changes in engines. > But some engine-programmers expressed in this forum that if they would tune >their engines against "anti-chess" players, then the engines would be weaker in >playing "normal chess". Consequently, it's not possible to write an engine >which could play the strongest possible "normal chess" and at the same time >efficiently prevent the opponent to play "anti-chess". >My question is: > Theoretically, is this applicable (to a certain extent) against human players? >If relatively weak players can draw against the top engines, why couldn't an IM >achieve always a draw against a GM? (using the so called "stonewall" technique) > >Robert Easy one. A GM is not as dumb as a machine. That's the reason why Anti-computer-chess does exist at all. Think about it for 10 seconds. If you play Anti-Computer-chess you reduce intentiously your chess talents. You concentrate on the machine and its alleged weaknesses. I can't see how you could "tune" your chess for play against human GM. As Kurt said a GM is better anyway and he sees what you are doing. Let me make a Rule for a special chessplay where you intentiously play a system, a very solid piece positioning without intending any active play. Such systems are known under names like Hedgehog. You can also find in many games of the german BL the so-called Saacke-System. It's a Caro-Kann with g6 and then Bc8 to g4, then e7-e6 and later c6-c5 with a very solid position for Black. First time that was played by no other than Petrosjan. A German expert player of the category A created with the help of his team members a complete system with really sophisticated key moves. If White doesn't know the details, Black has an easy game. But - and this is now the backside of the medal. In the hands of a GM who also takes care of the important White move h2-h3 against Bg4 - will smash Black because the position simply is too passive for Black. So, if a GM as White who knows the details will win against a weaker Black even if Black knows all the tricks. - So, by definition a GM doesn't play that system with Black. In other words, a GM knows such strong key moves for all sorts of systems. And because such systems always are beyond modern chess with its deep ressources, it's enough easy for a GM to win the game. Take a machine and compare it with such GM then you directly understand why machines can well be surprised with such tricks even if the chess is second best. - It's also clear that all the programmers want to avoid all such systems because they know how badly the machines do play in such positions. This is what I call "tuning" the machine against a player like Eduard. In dozens of published games Eduard has shown where the difficulties are for a machine. All that can be avoided if it came to a public match between Eduard and a machine. Such events don't make sense, simply because even if the machine is winning with 100% it wouldn't be big news!
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.