Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:02:22 11/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 1999 at 16:39:07, odell hall wrote: > > If I win one in seven games against computers using blocked center >strategies, and other such so-called anti-computer strategies can this >realistically be called anti-computer play? I think it is a myth, and that there >is no such thing as anti computer play. Not to say that computers don't still >have obvious weakness, but that there is no clear defineable or stereotypical >pattern that these weakness follow. Ten years ago , all computers demonstrated a >obvious materialistic greed. I used to beat the radio shack 2150 by simply >sacrificing a pawn for active piece play or an attack. Try such crude methods >against modern programs and they will backfire. Judith polgar tried a similiar >method against Fritz in their action match and got murdered. >You have to laugh when you read some of the comments at Rgcc, where people >pretend that the strategies of ten years ago, still work today. Yet when you >challenge these people to ICC matches or ask them to produce some concrete >examples of this "Anti-computer play some excuse is always give. If there was >any real workable anti-computer play then fritz6 would not have won frankfurt, >even if it was just action chess. Junior 5 would not have defeated Boris >Gelfand at 60 0. Also if you look at the grandmaster challenge I don't think >rebel lost any of it's games because of any Anti-computer play. IF I am wrong >would some one point out a specific example? Oh by the way this is my opinion, I >am not claiming this is a absolute fact. Anti-computer chess is a blanket name for one of several styles of chess designed to take advantage of perceived computer weaknesses. One variant is the unsound violent attack. An attempt is made to steer the computer into lines where it is objectively lost, by way of offering it material that no strong human would accept. Another variant is the slow attack. The center is locked, the king is put in a safe place, usually away from the opposing king, and a very slow and determined buildup is undertaken. The point is to build up an overwhelming position where tactics are all rather remote, and then suddenly the tactics are here, and the computer cannot avoid them. Some players will attempt to give the computer a bad minor piece, or some other persistent weakness, and then use that to leverage all of the counterplay out of the computer's position. In other cases, a human player will attempt to reach a static position, where the computer has no profitable pawn breaks, then just sit back and wait for the 50-move rule to take effect. Another case that is arguable anti-computer chess is repeated games with the same line, in order to gain experience against a specific program with a specific line, in order to find a position that the program doesn't play well, and win that position. Any of these strategies will work against any known computer, I suspect. It has obviously become harder to initiate them, since the computers see a little further ahead, but I think they all still work. bruce
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.