Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Sep '10 17:10
    Are computers really good with tactics and not so great with strategy?
  2. 26 Sep '10 18:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Are computers really good with tactics and not so great with strategy?
    Apparently so.
  3. 26 Sep '10 18:31
    Well then, I should think that unless we base out chess games on strategy, we should be maximizing our computers!
  4. 26 Sep '10 18:34
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Well then, I should think that unless we base out chess games on strategy, we should be maximizing our computers!
    That seems to be the way the top guys go on ICCF. The computer looks after the tactics and the human contributes positional and schematic thinking.
  5. 26 Sep '10 18:37
    I have no asperations of reaching to the top levels of chess, although I suppose at some point I'll start to understand deeper strategic goals, until then I'll play fun games where I try to open the board and win or lose based on won or lost tactics.
  6. 26 Sep '10 18:42 / 2 edits
    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.
  7. 26 Sep '10 18:44
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have no asperations of reaching to the top levels of chess, although I suppose at some point I'll start to understand deeper strategic goals, until then I'll play fun games where I try to open the board and win or lose based on won or lost tactics.
    If you aren't intending to get a CC title then no computer and throwing tactics about is much more fun. On ICCF you'd get steamrollered on a regular basis by the lower level engine users but here you can have fun without worrying too much about the rude mechanicals.
  8. 26 Sep '10 18:44
    Originally posted by Diophantus
    That seems to be the way the top guys go on ICCF. The computer looks after the tactics and the human contributes positional and schematic thinking.
    This is basically what I was talking about in my last line!
  9. 26 Sep '10 18:50
    Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
    This is basically what I was talking about in my last line!
    Yup, you see a lot of closed positions. Ivar Bern still plays Sveshnikovs though so there is still some fun to be had.
  10. 26 Sep '10 19:25 / 1 edit
    Stone the crows.

    Another thread on computer chess....nobody got any blitz games to show? 🙄
  11. 26 Sep '10 19:29
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Stone the crows.

    Another thread on computer chess....nobody got any blitz games to show? 🙄
    I have two three day a move games going if you want to do your usual hatchet job. Three days is blitz for me!
  12. 26 Sep '10 19:41 / 1 edit
    Post it on the forum when the game is over.
    Title thread 'New Opening in Blitz Game beats Computer.'

    It will get that many hits it will crash the system.

    Back on topic.

    Can someone post a game they have won v a box (a good box)
    a Frtiz 10 or RB3. Not blitz say a 30-45 minute game.

    Read this:

    http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/stonewall.html

    Anyone want to try it v F10 or RB3.
  13. 26 Sep '10 20:07
    maybe that worked in 1997. not so sure today.
  14. 27 Sep '10 00:07
    I don't think so either, 13 years is a lifetime in computer talk.
    But you never know.

    One of the guys with the souped up kit try it.

    Even set up close to the critical position and see if Fritz or Rybka smell it.

    Be good if it did work , I can just see the headlines.

    The Boys at RHP have bust Fritz, Rybka & Deep Blue.

    "A bunch of 1800 players led by someone very handsome calling himself
    greenpawn have succeeded where Kasparov failed and are destroying the
    worlds best computers with a 45 move opening trap."
  15. 27 Sep '10 01:39 / 1 edit
    I believe ''antichess'' the style used by that guy who consistently beats rygba 3, our best chance at beating computers!

    http://www.superchessengine.com/anti_computer.htm