Originally posted by z00t If someone plays a move or moves that only computers do in that situation. The honourable thing to do would be to resign but computers just make a silly move like sacing the queen for instance.
In some instances very highly rated people on correspondence chess sites have been known to call knights "a horsie" or decline attempts to discuss the game after they ...[text shortened]... plete patzer but uses a chess engine to win unfairly - explaining the lack of chess knowledge.
Opps I better stop talking about my horsies, castles and soldiers then!
What should I call them?
and that strange move with the pawns that my computer makes when he can't capture, does that have a name?
In GNUChess's defence, I was playing it on my XP computer where it did not have an opening book. Equipped with an opening book and playing against an unaided human, it would beat 9 out of 10 humans. (9 out of 10 again? hehe)
Anyone knows what happened to Mary Ann? No-one was on their buddy list? It was a shame when one of the few females on the site decided to do the un-thinkable.
Originally posted by YUG0slav correspondance chess gives you days to decide on a move. That's days to consult chess books or historic games for aid on your move. I know for a fact that I am a better cc player than blitz player as I do take the time to analyze each move (using historic games for similar positions) and find the best one, I simply can't do that in blitz or otb.
I learnt to play by playing chessmaster. It has a teaching mode that explains what and why a move is good.
In a sense I play more like a computer as a lot of my positional chess play is copied from the past recommendations of that program. My chess intuition is very poor.
When i played in a league match i would analyse my games with chessmaster. I was always pleased that 90% of my moves would be what chessmaster recommended. The problem would be the 10% moves where nearly always losing moves in sharp, uneven calculating positions.
Like yourself I am best at slow games and my moves become MUCH closer to computer moves.
Originally posted by petrosianpupil I was always pleased that 90% of my moves would be what chessmaster recommended.
cm's 'agreement rate' is not match up rate. you were nowhere near 90%. and it doesn't make any difference if you learn by playing against computer. you still make your decisions like a human.
Originally posted by z00t This is the relevant position later on I noticed that black could have tried 36 ..Kg8 seeing I was seriously out of time. Perhaps chess software can be adapted to detect when their opponents are in time trouble and to play for time just like human opponents. Perhaps one of the reasons playing humans is more fun than playing software is the humaniblity aspect.[fen]3rb2r/pp2n1pk/4Pp1p/3p1P2/2pP1QN1/2P4R/2P1B2P/q5RK w - - 0 36[/fen]
Originally posted by z00t Why just because she cheated or because she claimed to be female?
Because her profile image was called sexyfemale32.jpg (or similar) and appears to have been taken from somewhere online (someone found the source at some point). And anyway, that picture looked like a man.
Also "Equipped with an opening book and playing against an unaided human", wouldn't that mean that GNUChess was cheating?!!!@!@!@>!>!@#!@IU&$T#@*($&T@$#(@(#$#@FSDF DFSEDF #$@#$ #@$
From what I hear, you use a new organic based engine. It appears that it isn't quite as reliable as the silicon ones, but it has greater chess knowledge and can find some shockingly good moves at times. Of course, cheating this way will not be tolerated either and you will get the punishment you deserve!
EDIT: I didn't realize how long this thread was. It seems someone caught on before me.
GNUChess does a "MaryAnn"
09 Aug '06 19:26
Back to Top