Originally posted by Eladar
Well then, I should think that unless we base out chess games on strategy, we should be maximizing our computers!
I can often identify when someone is using a computer at blitz by their non-strategic moves.
Computers sometimes do silly things like put a knight in front of the c pawn in a queen pawn opening or create a similar position with no pawn breaks.
The problem is that computers get away with these things because they can see that making these moves wins in the next 2 or 3 moves with concrete analysis of all the moves.
I'll often be playing a correct strategic game and then look up at the board. The combination of the computers moves all together have a crippling effect. I end up with a great strategic position with no good way to make progress.
In the early days of computers, the strong ones did lose to strategy, however.
I have a game with Fritz 4, where it did all the wrong things in a King's Indian Defense type position. It closed the center, didn't open the queenside, and understimated my kingside chances. In the post game analysis it's evaluation shot from a slight advantage to down 3 pawns by a simple and thematic piece sacrifice (Bxh3 for black).
It's hard to get computers into these positions now. They see a lot more and prevent a lot more.
I think a strategic closed game is the way to beat these things, but even then it requires a lot of good concrete analysis, which is very demanding on a human.