Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 15:39:02 08/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Uri, I presume you are playing in the Israeli Correspondence Ch. and not putting Junior into an OTB championship. If so, openings that are statistically best for computers versus humans in OTB chess probably don't relate to what's best in correspondence chess. Further, the result of games between compuers and humans probably has little to do with openings anyway. Humans can play their openings properly, only to miss tactics in the middlegame. For example, since computers excel at tactical calculations in the middlegames versus humans, then openings that lead to open and aggressive middlegames are advantageous for computers in OTB chess. However, in correspondence chess, where the human can deeply/accurately (hopefully) analyse the lines, this is less of a factor. In fact, I believe reliance upon computers at the higher levels of correspondence chess is actually foolish, unless one only uses them for "blunder checks". My belief is that in correspondence chess, one should always play the very best line that one can. If some lines are objectively equivalent, then play the lines that are subjectively most attractive to you. Of course, I presume it's OK to use a computer in Israeli Correspondence chess? Also, how do you know your opponent isn't also using a computer? If so, your anti-human strategy is irrelevant. Thus, the proper course of action is to forget about the computer's opening book and play the openings you think are best for Uri Blass; then have Junior assist you after that. Anyway, I hope you are better prepared and more current in opening theory Uri than a computer's opening book. ;) If you'd like to discuss openings off-line, you are welcome to e-mail me and we can share ideas. Sincerely, Steve
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.