Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:35:37 02/27/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2006 at 16:19:42, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >Hi folks, > >I am trying to learn a second defensive. system for black, other than the >accelerated dragon. I have been trying out the scandanavian, and I do ok with it >in practical blitz play (no correspondence yet). > >One way I learn about openings is to pit two good engines in it and look at the >plans they come up with. In the case of the scandanavian, I will put a weaker >engine in as white (spike 1.1.), and rybka in as black, just because i want to >see how black wins. > >Well, with the critical scandanavian lines, black has tremendous trouble >winning, even when it is a stronger engine. I tried giving Rybka more time (200 >to 300% more time), but still rybka has trouble against spike 1.1.. It isn't >just specific to spike and rybka. I ran a little tournment with 20 games (rybka, >fruit, fritz9, spike1.1. and ruffian 2.1) and white won 14.5 to 5.5. in the >critical scandanavian line. > >The scandi scores well based on huge numbers of games on icc blitz (49% for >black; but we don't know the strength level of the players), but does more >poorly amongst higher level players in otb tournements. > > >So....Should i base my opening choices on this kind of computer anlalysis.... >The computers think black has long term disadvantages in some scandi lines. Or >are computers irrelevant to my choice. For openings, I would definitely use a reference book like MCO or the like in conjunction with the computer analysis. Chess openings are the weakest point for computer analysis. Especially for gambits, I would take any computer opinion with a large grain of salt.
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.