Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 10:08:00 06/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2005 at 12:42:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 24, 2005 at 00:06:23, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On June 23, 2005 at 22:59:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2005 at 15:17:42, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:53:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:01:41, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 12:46:37, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 11:14:06, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 09:37:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 01:32:43, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 23:33:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 21:49:25, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 16:17:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 23:00:37, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 18:36:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 16:44:21, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 15:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:19:44, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:11:23, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:04:37, Ted Summers wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To sum it up " He played a drawish opening in a tactic way. " Not a good idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>when computers are able to hang with the best and proving themself as better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than humans in open tactical positions. However I still think GM Adams can pull >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it together and Win or Draw this match. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[D] r2q1rk1/1pp3pp/p2b4/nP1p1p1b/2PPn3/3B1N1P/P1QN1PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 17 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Having reached this position, we seemed to be watching the beginning of the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for Adams in the first game but hopefully not the match. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C4! was a killer positional shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>c4 was a good move, but hardly a "killer". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems clear GM Adams missed this move when he played Na5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Adams miissed it, but it hardly seems "clear", since Black is still OK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>afterwards. His loss happened later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The problem here is that the kingside is already a bit open. One does _not_, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a human, allow the computer to open _both_ sides of the board in the same game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It invites a debacle such as this. Of course, he made a couple of tactical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>errors around the point where the rook on C8 was hanging, but he was already in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the wrong kind of position... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the comps were suggesting the same moves as played by Hydra, so there was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>real surprises from the white side, just black making an error here, an error >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there, before long he fell off the rim of the canyon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is in my view far to general. Black was at least = uptil move 23.Be6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[D]2rq1r1k/6pp/p2bB3/2p1Np1b/3Pn3/7P/P1Q2PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 23 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Define "equal". Here I am considering the important detail that white is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computer, black is a human. In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>By that logic Adams was already much worse after 1.e4 no matter what he did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's face it, Hydra is stronger. Adams will probably be under presure in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>game where he has the black pieces. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>He is equal unless you use your "considering the important detail that white is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>a computer" logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He isn't lost, but he is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But in an open position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>He was under presure, yes. That is a far cry from "has no chance". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>another human. And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finds white better IMHO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your opinion is wrong, unless perhaps you mean that white had a very slight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage. That is the norm in chess, by the way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Adams played 23...Rc7 while 23...cxd4 looks like it holds everything nicely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>together. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together. The comps were at about +1 here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe Craqfty sees +1, but the top programs don't see anything near +1 until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>_after_ Rc7. Before Rc7 black was fine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then the next few moves were mostly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bad by black, turning this into a debacle. But if there were not so many open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>files, open diagonals, etc, black wouldn't have had to be worrying about tactics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all over the board. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One line could be 23...cxd4 24.Qxc8 Qf6 25.Qc4 Qxe5 26.Qa5 and black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>looks OK to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But white looks better to me there. Maybe not "winning better" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"significantly better". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Try "very slightly better". Adams played well until Rc7. Hydra is very strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and kept putting the presure on and finally Adams made a mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, let me remind you that I qualified my response to "knowing this is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>computer vs human, black is exposing himself to difficulty." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>That is _not_ what you said. If that _had_ been what you said I would have >>>>>>>>>>>>agreed. But your original statements were stronger. Here are some actual quotes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Here is _the_ actual quote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"efine "equal". Here I am considering the important detail that white is a >>>>>>>>>>>computer, black is a human. In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal. He isn't lost, but he >>>>>>>>>>>is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw. But in an open position. >>>>>>>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing >>>>>>>>>>>another human. And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move >>>>>>>>>>>finds white better IMHO." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I believe that shows exactly what I said I said... "the important detail". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"black making an error here, an error there" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In chess terms he made his error on move 23, not "an error here, an error there" >>>>>>>>>>>>before move 23. In anti-computer terms, by your logic he should never should >>>>>>>>>>>>agreed to the match, since 1...e5 is the defense he knows best and no matter >>>>>>>>>>>>what he does he will be playing into Hydra's strength (either the "open game" or >>>>>>>>>>>>else openings Adams doesn't know as well as Hydra). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"he just has no chance in that kind of position" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>This is silly. Of course he has a chance. The odds are against him, yes. The >>>>>>>>>>>>odds are against him when he has black no matter _what_ opening he plays. But >>>>>>>>>>>>Adams on a good day will find a way to hold 1...e5 against Hydra, even if/when >>>>>>>>>>>>Hydra opens things up. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together. The comps were at about +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>here already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>No. Maybe Crafty said +1, but the _top_ programs say ~=. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"If your strength is in the same area as your opponent, but his strength >>>>>>>>>>>>in that area is much greater, only an idiot would stick with that plan" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You're calling Adams an idiot? This is the kind of statement I find really >>>>>>>>>>>>offensive. What arrogance!! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd be fairly happy with either side against an equal human opponent. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>against a computer, I want things blocked, not open. e4 e5 is the wrong way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>block things up. There are multiple options after e4 that avoid many of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>wide-open king-pawn type positions... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>He's done the same thing again today. f4 was the move I would play as white, >>>>>>>>>>>>>_unless_ I was playing a computer. Before I would play f4, I would have to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>_certain_ that I can win from that point. I would not want to leave the >>>>>>>>>>>>>computer playing on both sides of the board, with a pair of bishops, pair of >>>>>>>>>>>>>rooks and a queen still on the board. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Then how come he got a draw today? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Fortunate, to say the least. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>1.5 - .5 is not exactly a scintillating result?? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>So again, my comments were based not on pure chess, but on the opponent for >>>>>>>>>>>>>Adams... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I believe Adams knows better than anyone else on the planet in what openings he >>>>>>>>>>>>does best against computers. I think it is highly arrogant when people suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise. The fact that Adams is a 1...e5 player does not help him, I agree; >>>>>>>>>>>>but if he starts switching openings he will also have trouble, since now he will >>>>>>>>>>>>be playing a computer that knows the opening better than he does. _Either_ way >>>>>>>>>>>>is an up-hill battle. Adams might try 1...c6, since he has played that on >>>>>>>>>>>>occaision, but anything else is highly unlikely and computers can put some real >>>>>>>>>>>>presure on in the Caro too. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Believe or say what you want. If you think humans ought to play open positions >>>>>>>>>>>against the computers, that's your right to believe so. But it is an insane way >>>>>>>>>>>to play the game, as has been demonstrated _countless_ times in GM vs Comp >>>>>>>>>>>matches over the past few years... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I notice that: >>>>>>>>>>1) You conveniently don't comment on the other quotes from your posts, just the >>>>>>>>>>first one of the 5 I mentioned. Hmmm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I notice that you have a _real_ problem following a conversation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have noticed you have a _real_ problem with insulting people you don't agree >>>>>>>>with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I tend to not >>>>>>>>>repeat something over and over if avoidable. I made it clear that my comments >>>>>>>>>were colored by the "computer vs human" issue. Early in the thread. I didn't >>>>>>>>>see any need to continually repeat that over and over. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If that slipped by you, oh well... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, that did not slip by me. I know all about the "computer vs human" issue. >>>>>>>>What _has_ slipped by me is a specific response by you to some of the specific >>>>>>>>quotes from you that I took issue with. I guess I will never get a response to >>>>>>>>those (other than insults). For example in one post you called 1...e5 against a >>>>>>>>computer "a blunder". In another you said not playing in an anti-computer style >>>>>>>>is "not a blunder". Which is it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2) You seem to claim that I "think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>>>the computers"; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Please learn to read, then return to the discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bob, you are the one not reading here. I was talking about what you seem to >>>>>>>>think that _I_ said: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>the computers, that's your right to believe so". But I have _never_ said humans >>>>>>>>ought to play open positions against the computers. Why do you imply that I >>>>>>>>think that? What quote can you show me where I said _anything_ remotely like >>>>>>>>that? You can't. Instead you twist my words into something I didn't say and then >>>>>>>>argue against the straw man you created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I said _exactly_ the opposite unless I had a typo somewhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, I _KNOW_. I was talking about what you were saying about _me_. Learn to >>>>>>>>read, then return to the discussion. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Clearly humans should play closed positions against computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I agree, and I have repeatedly agreed. If they can. It just isn't all that easy >>>>>>>>against a program such as Hydra, playing the white pieces, that has probably >>>>>>>>been designed to open lines in anti-human fashion rather than being tuned to >>>>>>>>beat other computers, as most PC programs have been. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That is what all the "anti-computer style" posts >>>>>>>>>are always talking about... I didn't say that you said the above anywhere in my >>>>>>>>>posts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Then what is this?: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>the computers, that's your right to believe so." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I _never_ said anything remotely like that. Stop putting up straw men. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I simply pointed out that open positions are _bad_ when playing a >>>>>>>>>computer. Period. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I _KNOW_; I _AGREE_. You can stop repeating yourself now. But you have also said >>>>>>>>other things. Like playing 1...e5 against a computer is a "blunder". I don't >>>>>>>>agree with that. You have also said, in effect, that Adams should play openings >>>>>>>>he doesn't know. I don't agree with that either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but I _never_ said that. In fact I agree they shouldn't as I >>>>>>>>>>said in my other posts. But keeping the position closed is easier said than >>>>>>>>>>done, just avoiding 1...e5 is not enough. Plus if it means the human must leave >>>>>>>>>>their known book it is out of the frying pan into the fire. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Not for a GM. They have a few more skills than that and I doubt Adams or any >>>>>>>>>other GM would feel that uncomfortable playing something unusual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Some GMs have very wide opening repertoires. Others do not. Adams is one of the >>>>>>>>ones who does not. In another post I gave a game where Adams tried the Najdorf >>>>>>>>against a player rated 370 points lower. Adams lost. I don't believe he has >>>>>>>>played the Sicilian since. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And he did have months to prepare, don't forget. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. I'm sure he did. And he probably played 1...e5 against PC's, and he >>>>>>>>probably did just fine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If he didn't use that time to figure this out, what more could be said? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What makes you think Adams didn't figure something out? And how can you be sure >>>>>>>>he didn't figure out that he can play 1...e5 against computers and do OK? Not >>>>>>>>every game that starts 1.e4 e5 ends up open and messy. Not every game that >>>>>>>>starts 1.e4 <insert black move that is not e5 here> ends up closed and >>>>>>>>positional. White has a much easier time creating and open and messy game than >>>>>>>>black trying to keep things quiet. Of course PC's that have been tuned to play >>>>>>>>PC's don't generally open things up, but I think Hydra has been tuned to >>>>>>>>anti-human, not PC's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Let me sum up my position for you Bob; maybe this time you will understand :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1) I agree that where possible, humans should avoid open positions against >>>>>>>>computers. You don't need to keep repeating that. Everyone already knows that. >>>>>>>>Believe it or not, even Adams knows that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2) For a GM with a wide opening repertoire, avoiding 1.e4 e5 is a good idea, >>>>>>>>because of #1, above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>3) For a GM with a limited opening repertoire (Adams) it is _also_ a good idea >>>>>>>>to play the openings you know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Adams opted to pay attention to #3. That is not a "blunder" or any of the other >>>>>>>>names his decision has been called. It is opting for the fire instead of the >>>>>>>>frying pan. That Adams lost the game is not surprising. Hydra is stronger. Hydra >>>>>>>>had white. A Hydra win was the most probable outcome no matter what opening >>>>>>>>Adams chooses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Keep on babbling. All your arguments are refuted by reality. >>>>>>>Right now Adams got smashed again after 1.e4 e5. >>>>>>>Again he was completely lost in under 30 moves. >>>>>>>The game 2 clearly proved that Hydra has no clue what to do if there is nothing >>>>>>>to do (Bf8,Be7,Bf8,h6) etc. before Adams tried to lose the game but didn´t >>>>>>>succeed. Probably he dreamed about a Kingside attack. He played some unnecessary >>>>>>>and weak positional moves in this game >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Michael >>>>>> >>>>>>You're a GM huh? >>>>>> >>>>>>Robin is making a good arguement, and explains his position clearly, but both >>>>>>you and Hyatt, both below expert, keep hounding Mr. Robin Smith, who is a >>>>>>correspondence GM and twice US correspondence champion. >>>>>>He's also a published author, Modern Chess Analysis. >>>>>> >>>>>>He deserves a little more respect. >>>>> >>>>>I would bet I have watched 1000X more computer vs human games than he has. I >>>>>would bet I have carefully analyzed 10000X more computer vs human games than he >>>>>has. Most of us understand the "open position problem". Why he doesn't I don't >>>>>know. Why Adams is playing suicide chess I don't know. But he certainly is. >>>>>0-2 playing 1. e4 e5 as black ought to be instructive enough to show that this >>>>>plan isn't working. >>>>> >>>>>But we get hung up on whether a US correspondence player is more knowledgable >>>>>about computer vs human chess or not. The answer is simply "no". >>>> >>>>You're probably right that 1..e5 isn't the safest way to go, but it shouldn't be >>>>suicide. Robin does understand the problems with open positions with computers >>>>and has repeatedly stated this. >>>> >>>>Adams obviously hasn't properly prepared against this beast, but 1..e5 can still >>>>draw, if you know what you're doing, even with a powerful computer such as >>>>Hydra. This is Adams main weapon, it may just be as bad to switch to 1..e6 or >>>>1..c6 if he's uncomfortable doing so. If not, then I agree that he should >>>>switch. Otherwise, no. >>>> >>>>If Kasparov played 1..e5, I'd expect he'd draw it at will, on a good day, but >>>>Kasparov would rather play 1..c5 and most likely draw, although he might win as >>>>well. The Sicilian can lead to wild complications, but I doubt it would deter a >>>>player like Kasparov. >>>> >>>>You haven't been as insulting as Micheal, but you have been a bit rude during >>>>this dialogue, and I think it's unnesessarily inconsiderate. >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>>I don't think you will find that _I_ started any "rudeness". I started my >>>remarks explaining that they are about comp vs human games... yet I get >>>nonsense comments about insulting the GM and is this a blunder or a mistake or >>>what? Doesn't matter. Blunder. Bad move. Bad preparation. Who cares. The >>>move 1. e4 e5 is simply the _wrong_ opening for black. >>> >>>From _lots_ of experience, computers play e4 openings _very_ well. They are >>>natural openings for the kind of "plans" computers like. That's why they are >>>going for e4 rather than d4, which leads to a completely different kind of game >>>most of the time. I'd sooner try the "Levy Hedgehog" type opening than trying >>>e5 against a strong computer. Make white come over and beat you. Don't invite >>>it over by opening lines on both sides of the board... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-Robin >> >>Robert 1..e5 isn't that bad, if it is then there is something wrong with chess! >> >>Do you think that 1..e5 is that poor due to the tacticle nature of the game, >>even against a tactician like Hydra? > >Yes. Again, I've played chess for 45+ years. If I know my opponent is strong >tactically, I'm not going to be playing gambits and openings that lead to sharp >tactics. If I know my opponent hates tactics, I am going to play tactical >openings. My goal is to push him into a game he doesn't like. It isn't always >possible to do this, but I can guarantee you that I am not going to _drag_ him >into a game he does like, if I can avoid it. > > >> >>Hydras' tactical ability is no better than Anand's or Kasparov's at best and >>probably worse, the main difference is Hydra is consistent, it dosen't tire, it >>make no simple oversights. > > >I completely disagree, as would most GM players you ask. The computers are far >more accurate at tactics than humans. And they are far worse at strategic ideas >than humans. So which way would you try to force the game? > > Kasparov and Kramnik disagree, but I would say computers spot tactics faster and often see deeper mates. You may be right, but frankly I don't want to get further side-tracked. These are unproductive discussions, and way off my original intent. I don't want to be sucked into some mind game with you that will last forever. > >> >>If and only for this reason one shouldn't play 1..e5 then chess is a "bust" >>White wins. I don't believe this. However, for most humans and even GMs 1..e5 >>maybe should be avoided due to the tireless nature of the machine, otherwise >>1..e5 is a good choice. > > >Chess isn't a bust. e4 is a perfectly playable opening. And e5 is a perfectly >playable response to e4, but if you are playing against a computer, which is >clearly better than you are at calculation, you just don't play the openings >that lead to positions where it is known to be stronger than you are... > Yeah, Yeah, we've gone over this, case closed. >Look at some of Nemeth's games he has posted here. You will get the idea. Talk >to Roman on ICC and ask him about openings against computers. Or Kim Commons. >Or any of the other chatty (and strong) players there. > I have and if I want to discuss this with Roman I will, but stop bringing in references, I'm through talking about this. > > >> >>I'm not an e5 player, so I would play c5 if I felt I could handle it. Next would >>be e6, then c6. However, f5?! would be right out!:-) >> >>Terry > > >I'm not even sure I would try c5 since white gets some choices along the way >there that can turn very sharp. White always has choices, come on we're digressing here. Let's quit this futile conversation. Ok?
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.