Author: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo
Date: 11:20:20 07/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hello Fernando. For me to beat an engine has many sense. The way is not impotant, just to beat the engines is important for me................. , I would like to see a real standard strong engine, that I could not draw or beat. But not ............. they must to be modified ................exept the best of the best for me : Comp Quark !!!! ............ and of course I would like to see a good opening book that know how to beat the stone wall, a book against the stone wall........ but not easy to continue wining ............... Everyday I have been reading notes like.... This is a WCCC up to 2700 elo, etc, etc, etc. But not truth .... .............. all is strange ....... Top engines beating top humans beings, and in the same day losing against not important chess players. My sumary about engines is now ..... They are as smart as a genius, and minus smart as a little chiken. all at the same time .......... Maybe a good idea could be not put more antichess games here, listening to some anti-antichess human beings writters, and to continue everyone dreaming, that engines are the best, and dreaming that books opening engines are quite ok........ ............... An old dream ................. out of the reality, ........... just an item from the show..... Just that, Best, Pablo On July 15, 2005 at 12:25:55, Fernando Villegas wrote: >In the age -pleistocene- when my strongest chess computer was Champion Sensory >Challenger, supposedly rated 1773 in USCF scale, one day I got enough expertisse >about this specific computer and its program as to begin to get motre and more >better results, say, more draws and more wins. >Some of those good results, I realized, were the more or less unconscius use of >lines that has been good to me in the past, so in a way, specially in the >openning, I was tending to repeat them and so get better positions in the middle >game. >The day I realized that simple fact was the same day I begun to play with the >purpose NOT to use anymore those lines, NOT to use aymore those opennings and >NOT to remember nothing about even my brightest winning past manouvres -or what >I considered so- so I could play the Champion each time as if was the FIRST >time, when just unpacked. >Which was the rationale of such a decision, aparently against any normalo desire >to learn more chess and being a better chess player? >The rationale was that I liked to play the computer NOT to get results, but to >get FUN facing new challenges each time, to exercize my mind facing new >challenges each time and to explore new paths to, -Ok, you already guessed- face >new challenges each time. And as much the computer was not going to change, I >was the side to cange, changing my approach >Asociated with this was a simple financial calculation: the computer would >become a bad investment if it could not give me a kick each time I played it. >I think that this rationales, that I keep as a gospel to this day, is still >valid and make of any "anti-computer" approach a preposterous way of playing. >Sure, I would be defeated the same, but I avoid a probable win just because >"there is a way" to get it. >I say this not to flame Pablo, but just to debate about so diverse ways of using >computers. >My best >Fernando
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.