Author: Darrel Briley
Date: 15:58:07 05/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2005 at 18:52:07, Uri Blass wrote: >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 > >I think that there are probably IM's who can always or almost always draw >against GM's but never become GM's because they also draw against weaker >players. > >I know that naftali ben pinhas drew 9 games in an international tournament >against humans without a single loss or a single win. > >He is even not a master and his fide rating is only 2170 but part of his >opponents in the tournament were IM's. > >Uri Yes, I think you're probably right about there being many IM's who could do this, but they would do so, for the most part, by playing chess instead of "antichess". Against a strong GM playing for a draw is a good way to lose.
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.