Originally posted by ark13Looks like the Grand Prix Attack to me.
1. That's not the king's gambit. It's the Smith-Morra.
The Smith-Morra begins 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3
The King's Gambit begins 1.e4 e5 2.f4
I agree that 1.e4 is a poor choice against most software, although Excaliber seems pretty weak tactically.
Originally posted by WulebgrChessbase classified it as smith-morra.
Looks like the Grand Prix Attack to me.
The Smith-Morra begins 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3
The King's Gambit begins 1.e4 e5 2.f4
I agree that 1.e4 is a poor choice against most software, although Excaliber seems pretty weak tactically.
Originally posted by powershaker19. Ne5 deserves a question mark, not an exclamation mark; after 19. Qc6! white wins material (at least a rook for a knight).
Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... g4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!
p.s. That's for all you humans out there. 🙂
It's a mistake to make an assumption at all about one's own skill based on just one game. It's all games that count, not just the wins.
As the guy Elo, who developed the rating system, wrote:
>>Few chessplayers are totally objective about their positions on the board, and even fewer can be objective about their personal capacities and ratings. Most of them believe they are playing "in form" only when far above normal form, and they tend to forget that an outstanding tournament success is just as likely the result of off form performances by opponents as superior play by themselves. There is truth in the paradox that "every chessplayer believes himself better than his equal".
From: http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa03a25.htm
If I were to rate my strength based on the one win I had against the Chessmaster program several years ago, I guess I could convince everybody that I should be rated about 2700, as long as nobody thinks to ask about all the games I've lost.
Originally posted by dpressnellVery true - in the same way all drivers think they are better than average...
Few chessplayers are totally objective about their positions on the board, and even fewer can be objective about their personal capacities and ratings. Most of them believe they are playing "in form" only when far above normal form, and they tend to forget that an outstanding tournament success is just as likely the result of off form performances by oppo ...[text shortened]... ere is truth in the paradox that "every chessplayer believes himself better than his equal".
Originally posted by dpressnellBut I am better than my equals...
It's a mistake to make an assumption at all about one's own skill based on just one game. It's all games that count, not just the wins.
As the guy Elo, who developed the rating system, wrote:
>>Few chessplayers are totally objective about their positions on the board, and even fewer can be objective about their personal capacities and ratings. Most ...[text shortened]... ould be rated about 2700, as long as nobody thinks to ask about all the games I've lost.
=)