Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:37:30 02/27/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2006 at 17:09:11, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >But Dan, How much can you really trust the human experts? I mean, I have a video >by andrew martin on the scandanavian, and I have become convinced that one line >is just not good for black. The black side gets its but kicked again and again, >regardless of engine, etc (position below). That passed white pawn is tough, and >blacks so called "mobile pawn mass" on k-side can come under attack. (I have >decided to ditrust a line, unless the IM or GM plays it himself at the top >levels!!!!) > >ps I don't only use the computers evaluation of an opening. I let the comps play >through the openings and see what happens. > > > >[d] 2kr3r/ppq2p2/1n1b2p1/B1pPpp2/2P4P/1B6/PP2QPP1/2KR3R w - - 0 19 I think it is good to be skeptical about everything. Look at the lines in the MCO or NCO or whatever resource and see if they make sense to you. If a computer program has found a refutation, see if it has already been considered in the human analysis. Perhaps there is a rebuttle to the rebuttle. Obviously, both the computer and the human analysis can be incorrect. I think that the human analysis in the standard references like ECO, MCO, NCO is probably better (on average) than computer analysis unless you let the computers think for a very long time. And in gambit openings, most computer programs are woeful. Rybka seems to be a notable exception from the few positions that I have tried.
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.