Author: Darrel Briley
Date: 20:41:41 05/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2005 at 13:00:11, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 21, 2005 at 12:43:33, Darrel Briley wrote: > >>On May 21, 2005 at 12:27:38, Evgeny Shu wrote: >> >>>anti chess is like the opposite of chess, >>>but you actually ttry to win , so I would call it anti computer style :) >>>That's how the technique called I believe >> >>No, from looking at the games, I don't think he tries to win > >No >He certainly tries to win. > >He tries to win on time and time is part of the game. > > >Uri I respectfully disagree. I don't believe trying not to lose is the same as trying to win. The fact that an engine will misplay a position, and not crush him is completely outside the antichess player's control. Let's be honest, objectively speaking, this style of play should give nothing more than some drawing chances, at best. The fact that chess engines have some weaknesses that allow the occasional draw or even more rarely, a win, in no way means that the anti-chess strategy has any value as a winning attempt. As a post above notes (concerning Hiarcs), Pablo had to play 16 games (all losses) before getting a single win. The reason you see this happen on playchess and not ICC is because of the fact that ICC has rules against playing the same line(s) repeatedly against an engine until you find a way to win. Almost any moderately talented player can win by doing this, whether they use "antichess" methods or not. Let me see a series of wins/draws against the same engine, without a large number of accompanying losses, and without using the same lines over and over, then I'll give credit where credit is due.
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.