Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 22:33:30 12/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2005 at 23:13:59, Vladimir Xern wrote: >On December 21, 2005 at 19:08:59, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On December 21, 2005 at 12:47:14, Vladimir Xern wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2005 at 11:36:22, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>> >>>>This game can hardly count as "orthodox" victory. >>>>The win is solely based on very weak opening play by Rybka. >>> >>>Er, really? You mean to say that one side has to play worse than the other for >>>it to lose? >> >>No, I mean to say exactly what I wrote. > >And what you wrote was an excuse for why my win "didn't count" so to speak. Read >what you wrote again, then read what I wrote. :) No, apparently I wrote "didn't count as orthodox opening". I'm sorry, this is not the same. >>And here I thought that's how every chess game was decided. And that >>>since Rybka played a particular part of the game worse and lost, it still >>>"doesn't count" as a legitimate win? >> >>Why not. Be happy with your legitimate win. :) > >Thanks, but nothing to be too happy over apparently. It is for sure nothing to be proud of, unless you are a below 2000 rated player. Your opponent wasted 2 tempi in an already passive position: Bf8-b4+,Bb4-e7 is a tempo loss since c3 is a useful move. Be7-h4+,Bh4-e7 is also a tempo loss. >>Rybka Beta is not what you can call a well-rounded program yet. It plays the >>opening like a typical amateur engine (i.e. self-blockade of c-pawn or useless >>Bishop checks on b4,b5) and has a serious lack of endgame knowledge. >> >>Well damn, I guess I'm back to the drawing >>>board since winning apparently isn't good enough. >>>>Any good book has 1.e4 e6 2.e5 d6. Try to beat Rybka from there... >>> >>>If Rybka played anything that thoughtful, I wouldn't have gone for the Steinitz >>>variation in the first place, would I have? >> >>Getting the engine out of book on purpose at move two is Anti-Computer chess. >>There is nothing wrong with it but 1.e4 e6 2.e5 Sc6 3.d4 Bb4+? is not something >>you can call "orthodox line" by any means. > >Yes, but not "anti-chess" which all the pundits were screaming about. And I >can't help it Rybka played unorthodoxly, can I? I guess you people won't be >satisfied until someone outplays Rybka in some ultra-theoretical Najdorf, and if >that's the case, you're too far gone to reason with. :) >>>>Download the Man-Machine database from Tony Hedlunds site and search for a >>>>machine who played 1...e6 in an important man-machine game. >>>>You won't find many... >>> >>>Why? Oh, because you think the French is a poor defence for computers. Then you >>>should be happy that I gave your claims some validity after all. :) >> >>>Facts: the game is an offhand, informal blitz game I played on a Wednesday >>>morning while eating some breakfast cereal to provide a change of pace from >>>anti-chess. All you armchair dissenters should lighten up on the arrogance. >>>You're rated what, around 2300 FIDE? >> >>I wonder what my rating has to do with the subject. > >Read it again, it'll make sense. Not necessary If German is your first language (and English >second), I'd be happy to explain my reasoning more clearly. My first language is certainly German, otherwise my grammar and spelling wouldn't be so bad... Michael >>You should be on our side expending a >>>little elbow grease. :) >> >>>Oh, and Merry Christmas. >> >>Thanks, likewise >> > >Thanks. > >-Vlad
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.