Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:54:12 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 14:58:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. > "Top GM" players? They probably can play whatever they want and do ok. But anybody below an IM level had better pay attention. And even GM players have to beware when playing faster time controls. Open positions are poison. >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.