Originally posted by Darth SpongeGenerally they have a hard time with closed positions where all the Pawns are locked together and there aren't many open lines, from what I understand.
are there openings or sacrifices or tricks that chess programs in general have a hard time dealing with?
is there a certain level of ability when your basic (not Deep Blue) computer chess program is no longer a challenge?
Originally posted by Darth Spongeyeah by using another stronger program 😕
are there openings or sacrifices or tricks that chess programs in general have a hard time dealing with?
is there a certain level of ability when your basic (not Deep Blue) computer chess program is no longer a challenge?
I'm not knowledgable enough to back up this opinion with anything useful (like, say, facts!), but I'm sure there are ways to play against a computer. And more sophisticated methods than those mentioned above. I think it's interesting that computer programs are designed to take on human players, but those human opponents never get the opportunity to analyze how a given program plays and then discovermore specfic weaknesses in its game as one might do against a human opponent. Whilst the programmers get to study Kasparov's games in detail. What these techniques are, I'm certainly not qualified to say, but it's likely they wouldn't be as succesful against human opponents. Playing a computer is probably a slightly different skill.
Mike
Originally posted by mikenayBoris Alterman is the definative chess engine player.
I'm not knowledgable enough to back up this opinion with anything useful (like, say, facts!), but I'm sure there are ways to play against a computer. And more sophisticated methods than those mentioned above. I think it's interesting that computer programs are designed to take on human players, but those human opponents never get the opportunity to anal ...[text shortened]... ful against human opponents. Playing a computer is probably a slightly different skill.
Mike
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1283543
I've always loved this game as an example of how to beat a computer (and the position after 25. e4 appeals a great deal).
Unfortunately I can't seem to find his annotations on the game (they were extremely informative on the thinking behind his moves).
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt's on http://balterman.freeservers.com/altermanwall.html
Boris Alterman is the definative chess engine player.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1283543
I've always loved this game as an example of how to beat a computer (and the position after 25. e4 appeals a great deal).
Unfortunately I can't seem to find his annotations on the game (they were extremely informative on the thinking behind his moves).
Originally posted by Freddie2004yeah that is a bizarre game- move 26 e4 gets a Pawn Wall on the 4th rank- wild.
lol what a funny game with all those pawns!
and what about opening with f4??! and several other seemingly unorthidox moves-- (i've not read the article yet, os maybe this is covered) but is part of the strategy playing a computer to make unusual moves?
Originally posted by Darth Sponge1. f4 is not particularly unorthodox. Bird's Opening is a respected opening. The guy had a particular line he wanted to play in which nothing got traded off and which was totally closed.
yeah that is a bizarre game- move 26 e4 gets a Pawn Wall on the 4th rank- wild.
and what about opening with f4??! and several other seemingly unorthidox moves-- (i've not read the article yet, os maybe this is covered) but is part of the strategy playing a computer to make unusual moves?
Game 956631
This is the only game I have ever played where the opponent went on to admit he was using a computer against me in that specific game.
I have no idea how powerful his computer was, and I frankly don't care. It did'nt seem that strong to me, but he was able to go up about 500 points in three days with it. I did'nt like the layout or the way his pieces were building and changed the tide I think on moves 17-19. His computer obviously liked to trade so it had an inherent weakness.
That's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.