Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:58:39 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 14:35:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >>Especially if you try anti-computer strategy like D00 closed positions or >>strategic choices which a computer will fall for or things of that nature. >> >>But I think the best test would be to really play Ferret exactly as if it were >>any other opponent. >>[snip] > >I think that such a path leads to a 'sure death'. You have to be _very_ >strong to play 'normal chess' vs a computer. Chances go way up when you >play against the computer's known weaknesses. _not_ by playing _away_ from >them... I think it can go both ways. I think (perhaps) Kasparov tried so hard to play anti-computer chess that it pulled him completely out of his normal game plan on the second go-round. I wonder a bit whether GM's shouldn't just play their strongest game in the focus of where they are the most comfortable instead of trying anti-machine strategy. Now, of course, they should recognize the weaknesses of a computer. A distant pawn conversion on a busy board or a closed position is something to their advantage. But I think that perhaps being focused on strange things like perverse moves to get the computer out of book early is more likely to backfire.
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.