Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, but the interesting thing is , that when we change the structure, say to attack on the opposite wing (it usually happens when we create like in a stonewall configuration which has two leading pawns) then we must be aware that we are creating additional weaknesses. My plan was faulty Tomo, you yourself provided the bust, it was a bluff, plain an ...[text shortened]... imself of much of the joy and sorrow of chess. He deserves our pity for he has cheated himself.
Lol oh Robbie, did you not see? My bust was busted and I'm not talking about a statue.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Lol oh Robbie, did you not see? My bust was busted and I'm not talking about a statue.
wow, your bust was busted? i have not seen, was that Ragworts b5 suggestion, ill need to check it again, but its late and i am drinking whiskey and ice!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie wow, your bust was busted? i have not seen, was that Ragworts b5 suggestion, ill need to check it again, but its late and i am drinking whiskey and ice!
Originally posted by tomtom232 So you admit that you need computer programs to assist your chess?
I was referring to Hikaru Nakamura's computer machup rates before he started promoting all his pawns to knights. I don't think brain power alone will be able to get those matchup rates. I believe that there are some people on here that have the right computer programs to get those matchup rates and could let us, because they have done it before. Why not this time?
Originally posted by RJHinds I was referring to Hikaru Nakamura's computer machup rates before he started promoting all his pawns to knights. I don't think brain power alone will be able to get those matchup rates. I believe that there are some people on here that have the right computer programs to get those matchup rates and could let us, because they have done it before. Why not this time?
It's a moot point. We know Naka was playing against an engine. He fooled the engine, meaning in all likelihood the engine won't agree with at least some of Naka's moves. The engine will match 100%
So why bother?
Originally posted by ChessPraxis It's a moot point. We know Naka was playing against an engine. He fooled the engine, meaning in all likelihood the engine won't agree with at least some of Naka's moves. The engine will match 100%
So why bother?
Why not? He played good enough to beat that computer so he might of had a high matchup rate with a stronger computer engine. Perhaps someone was telling him the moves from a stronger computer engine. Didn't you think of that? Computer chess engines ares supposed to be better than humans, so doesn't it look suspicious that he beat this computer chess engine?
Originally posted by RJHinds Why not? He played good enough to beat that computer so he might of had a high matchup rate with a stronger computer engine. Perhaps someone was telling him the moves from a stronger computer engine. Didn't you think of that? Computer chess engines ares supposed to be better than humans, so doesn't it look suspicious that he beat this computer chess engine?
Believe it or not (I know YOU will find this hard to swallow) you don't have to use an engine to win.
thinking deficiencies
10 Jan '13 01:15
Back to Top