Voting has now ended . I will begin to end vote at this point every day. Fritz will be given 30 minutes to think of a move or less if it wants. If it plays a move that would result in a zugswang for us in the next move, I will automaticlly play the move and , yes , I will post FEN board positions . The move 1.d4 has been made. Please wait for 30 minutes to see a reply.
Fritz 9 has made his move in less than half a second. He is currently set at the highest level (2554 FIDE rating I think) so he shouldn't be as easy to beat . He has made reply to our move 1.d4
Game history : 1.d4 d5
Note from SicilianNajdorf : Odd move to me.I would play 1...Nf6 and then with the Gruenfeld.
Sorry : I am having trouble posting tghe FEN board insert . Either , please someone else post it here (recommended,please) or we get on with the game.
Originally posted by SicilianNajdorfHis highest level is 2554 FIDE only? Hm, I doubt that, if he is able to easily beat GMs I guess he is at least 2700.
Fritz 9 has made his move in less than half a second. He is currently set at the highest level (2554 FIDE rating I think) so he shouldn't be as easy to beat . He has made reply to our move 1.d4
Game history : 1.d4 d5
Note from SicilianNajdorf : Odd move to me.I would play 1...Nf6 and then with the Gruenfeld.
Sorry : I am having trouble posti ...[text shortened]... ert . Either , please someone else post it here (recommended,please) or we get on with the game.
I vote for 2.Bf4, going for London system. That is a good weapon against the comp, believe me.
The move 2. c4 keeps the most options open for us, but also for Fritz. If we play the QG Fritz has loads of choices for a defence. Besides the QG we also could adopt the Colle system but I do not have any experience with this. I'm undecided at the moment. Maybe it's possible for those players who are more experienced playing the computer at full strenght, to explain their thoughts on an opening for us. We really should keep the game positional and avoid any form of tactical play.
--SEVES
edit: I checked the games that have been played between a human (white) and a computer (black) on chessops (http://www.eudesign.com/chessops/). It seems that in most of the games won by white recently, 2000 till 2005, 1. d4 was followed by 2. c4. I didn't check the games that were lost by the human player.
My own opinion :
This extra information might seem unfair though.
Fritz 9 usually plays 1...Nf6 against me but only in the weak level.(1899 FIDE) . He usually plays the Nimzo-Indian Defence from that point. But when I try (even though I know he'll crush me) against the strong levels , they play the Slav Defence and I am poorly trained against that defence. But when I vote , my opinions won't change much from 2.c4 , so when I vote , please don't think I won't vote for 2.c4, the move is strong and the chances of me voting for it are high.
Karpov played it in Seville with Kasparov. 2.c4 is truely strong but don't get me wrong , other systems work too , but not that often,especially against a super-computer (although mine only has 4 processors) . But don't take my word for it , 2.c4 is good but not "the best" . Even a London System player could win and a Queen's Gambit player could lose , it depends on how you use your opening knowledge, not by just playing the opening and not knowing what to do next . Most of you agree with me , don't you ?
My vote has been made which is 2.c4
which makes it :
5 for 2.c4
1 for 2.Bf4
1 for 2.Nf3
Comments :
2. c4 : I voted for this becuase it is the usual style of the Queen's Gambit and I'm not going to dwell on the implications.
2. Bf4 : The London nor the Colle are not so bad , although I live in London [hehehe :-)] The setups are good like the Stonewall and the Leningrad .
2. Nf3 : I believe this should transpose to something like Queen's Gambit Declined or the Slav or even somehow the Reti .
Originally posted by SicilianNajdorfComputers are notoriously bad in the opening when they're out of their book. It's because their positional knowlege is so weak. Therefore the andersson would be a good move simply to get it out of the book. Secondly, I hardly think you could call it idiotic. If playing as black is idiotic, then you might as well resign whenever you get that color. And we're playing black with one extra almost useless move. I can't see how that's bad. I'll also have you know that 1. a3 won the vote for the first move in RHP vs Chessmaster, so I don't think it's something that no one will agree with. But it's irrelevant as it was not played.
8 for 1.d4
4 for 1. e4
Also , remember that if we have only 1 move to play , I will automaticlly give it to Fritz 9 becuase there is no point in starting a vote on a move with only one choice.
About a3 : A computer was tacticlly designed to play the best move by analyzing all the possible moves with different combinations , and judging which one ...[text shortened]... d happen) so I am voting now and I vote 1.d4 personally ,which makes it
9 for 1.d4
4 for 1.e4
Originally posted by schakuhrCan we just vote for a Colle system instead of a specific move as the move order doesn't really matter? Regardless, I'm going for Nf3.
I vote 2. Nf3, try for a Colle system (very solid.)
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING! KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE PLAYING AGAINST A COMPUTER, NOT A HUMAN! WE MUST ADJUST OUR STYLE ACCORDINGLY.
Again, I have the same logic. c4 leads to a more open game which we don't want. c4 is also the most common move, and will be keep the computer in opening book for a longer period of time. The argument that c4 is studied is in fact arguing against us. We need to play something unstudied, and use our superior creativity against Fritz. It's the only weapon we have against silicon.
The Colle system is perfect against the computer. It's an opening with little to no tactics, but a plan. White's play is all based upon a couple of common plans. Most humans know these plans, and so can deal accordingly when playing against the Colle. But the computer doesn't know these plans, and we will easily be able to take advantage of it with slow, building play. I doubt that the computer will be able to see deep enough to find a plan for its own, and will thus make pointless moves as computers do in closed positions.
1. a3 will not get a program out of its book . We all know how a computer thinks . It triggers through all possible combinations so it haves a good defence against Andersson defence therefore we are not getting it out of its book . Why the hell did Kasparov not play 1.a3 in most of his games as White , why did he play 1.Nf3 ? 1.a3 is your opening , ark , but not everyone else's . If we are playing the andersson for no specific reason , we are simply wasting our time here . A computer is weak when there are too many moves to think of . 1.a3 doesn't get us anywhere . We should play something like 1.e4 or 1.d4 or 1.f4 or 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 , not 1.a3 . These moves help develop ourself but a computer WAS TECHNICLLY DESIGNED TO TRIGGER THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS WITH AN INTERNAL ANALYSIS BOARD AND CONTINUALLY DEVELOP ITSELF . Please take my word for it . A computer's opening book is too hard to take advantage of . If humans want to stand a chance against A.I. then they must be provided with opening book and analysis board as well but a computer's knowledge of the game is too high . Nothing can get it out of its book apart from the only way to play against it , FischerRandom (aka Chess960) or some game like Arimaa. www.arimaa.com
If you people think 1.a3 will get it out of its book , well , I must say you are wrong , and I stick to the points ark , 1.a3 is good , but not for everyone , everyone wants their own move so matters get complicated so we create simplicity by making voting systems ,
1.a3 might be good for you , but I've never seen you play it any of the games.
IMPORTANT : A COMPUTER WILL PLAY DEVELOPMENT MOVES AGAINST 1.A3 AS IF WHITE DID NOT PLAY 1.A3 WHICH KEEPS IT IN ITS OPENING BOOK .
Thnak , you and sorry if you were metally offended .
Regards , Sicilian Najdorf .