Originally posted by SicilianNajdorfI'm not offended. We're having a healthy debate which is exactly what I need.
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 , a ...[text shortened]... ING BOOK .
Thnak , you and sorry if you were metally offended .
Regards , Sicilian Najdorf .
However, you appear not to be reading anything I've posted. I'll repeat myself: WE'RE NOT PLAYING A HUMAN! WE'RE PLAYING AN ENGINE AND MUST ADJUST OUR STYLE ACCORDINGLY! No, I've never played 1. a3 in a game against a human because, as you said, it's not the best move. We become black, instead of white. However, against a computer, it is a good move. You clearly know absolutely nothing about chess engines. I'll explain it to you. Most engines have three ways to decide on a move. 1. Opening book-this usually gets the computer through the first 10-20 moves. However, the creators of the book spend most of their time and energy on the more common openings. Thus, we'd probably get the computer out of its book by move two or three if we'd played 1. a3. 2. Analysis-this get the computer through most of the game. First, it looks at every move it can make, and evaluates the position afterward. Then it looks at every move the opponent can make in response to each of its moves, and evaluates the position. It continues this process. It'll stop analysing certain moves if they produce a terrible evaluatino. This is a powerful tactical tool, but the engine rarely gets more than 15 half moves deep. So it can't see forever. It also has to have a way to score each position based on material and position. It's easy to program material, but quite difficult to assign a number to a position. That's why a computer that's out of the opening book early, that must rely on its analysis usually flounders in the opening. It's a lack of depth to formulate a plan, and a lack of positional understanding. 3. Endgame tablebases-not important to this discussion.
So, as you can see, it's advantageous for us to get the computer out of book early, and to play a closed-type game. If we play an open, and tactical one, the computer will demolish us. But in a closed one our creativity may triumph.
Nothing can get a computer out of its book, huh? So why does it even have the analysis function, if all it has to do is follow the opening book based on the umpth trillion possible positions in chess. That's no problem, right? You're astoundingly ignorant about your own engine.
Kaspy played a normal opening in his games because 1. He was going for the win, and 2. Playing a3 at his level of play creates a big disadvantage. However, we're not playing for the win, and that's why I'd like to take up a style similar to the black player's, and we're not good enough that playing 1. a3 is going to have a big effect on the outcome of our game.
I've played 1.a3 against humans exactly because it gets them off their opening book lines. You end up in an English opening after 1. ... e5 and a wierd queen's pawn game after 1. ... d5. But this isn't how to beat a machine. Their opening books will allow them to cope with this. You need to be able to find a strategy that the machine can't beat with its tactical brilliance. 20 years ago the Benko gambit would have worked, as their assessments would be thrown out by the loss of material. Now they have the Benko coded into them so you have to find that kind of deep positional sacrifice in the middle game.
I'd vote for 2. c4 as it gives us more space.
Where did you get fritz 9 from? the only thing on chessbase which mentions fritz 9 is:
Kasimdzhanov played against the "big brother" of this chess engine, a prototype version of Fritz 9, which is based on strategic and tactical understanding rather than purely on a brute force search.
And that was June 23 /05
So what is fritz 9???
To ark :
Okay , so a computer has an opening book and thinks differently from a human , and like I said , it triggers through all the possible outcomes to find the most favourable position for itself . That explains it has an opening book against 1.a3 Andersson Defence , doesn't it . It even has a powerful defence against 1.b3 and 1.a4 and 1.b4 , why aren't you voting for those , if you say 1.a3 gets it out of its book those d as well , and then so does 1.e4 and 1.d4 and as we know a computer was CREATED so it could dominate the game of chess with its opening book mainly and middlegame/endgame tactics.
Plus , 1.e4 you say doesn't get it out of its book , neother does 1.a3
I'm saying that a computer can play even better than 1.a3 than it can to 1.e4 , 1... e5 to 1.a3 is better for Black than 1.e4 because 1.e4 is positionally better against 1.a3 . Every move in the opening is equal for the computer , 1.a3 or 1.e4 but for us , it's different , the computer will carry out playing the same thing against 1.e4 or whether it's 1.a3 with 1...e5 , doesn't make a difference , so it doesn't get him out of the book , and if it doesn't get him out of the book , for what reason do we play 1.a3 ?
I do believe 2. a3 would get Fritz out of his book and this could give us an edge. However Fritz gets all the freedom he needs to open up the game. And besides that Fritz could easily pick up on an opening after some more moves and transpose in something we will not like. It's too much of a free hand in my opinion. We have opening books too, and we should carefull choose a close system. I agree with ark13 we have to leave the opening book. But let us settle a little bit and force Fritz in a position we feel comfortable with.
--SEVES
For this moment I vote for the 2. c4. But feel free to convince me to vote for something else.
7 for 2.c4
1 for 2.Bf4
2 for 2.Nf3
6 hours left until 2.c4 is made to Fritz 9. By the way , about the guy asking Fritz 9 ever did come out , it did but not in the U.S. or maybe , oh yes , I was mistaken , the programs not called Fritz 9 , I'm very sorry , it's called CHESS . When I installed it , that was its name but it said Fritz 9 at the back the disc holder when I bought it in Russia. It's an DOS program based software but whether it's called Fritz 9 , ChessMaster 7000 or Deep Blue 16 , we don't care , we care about its playing ability , we don't judge computers by their name , brand and company , we compare them simply by their playing ability , otherwise they're used for bragging units.
Originally posted by SicilianNajdorfHa, we could call him IronMan32
7 for 2.c4
1 for 2.Bf4
2 for 2.Nf3
4 hours + 30 minutes remaining before 2.c4 is given to Fritz 9 or CHESS . I'd suggest we call him CHESS for the moment . Call it CHESS with capitals , not Chess , so we don't get mixed up with the game or the program.
It seems our voting is going really well . We're on our second move and 58 threads have been posted . Let us all keep up the good work with the 1.a3 debate and the game , good luck to our people , hope we beat CHESS .
7 for 2.c4
1 for 2.Bf4
2 for 2.Nf3
3 hours + 20 minutes remaining until voitng ends and 2.c4 will be played . This choice is very serious , in fact , it holds the fate of the game so remember , we must make sure we're doing the right thing here with 2.c4 otherwise we'll be heading for a long stay in the Blunderer's Hospital .
Sorry , people but I thought you said you wanted IronMan to join the game . Yeah , you're right , we can call my program IronMan32 , but one question I have . Who's going to use it ? For games or what ? Me , well that's cheating and like I said , "cheaters live by lies and die when the truth is near" . We can call him by his name I named , CHESS or something like SUPER CHESS A.I or something like that . Whatever , you call him , it's the same thing .
7 for 2.c4
1 for 2.Bf4
2 for 2.Nf3
2 hours left until 2.c4 is made to CHESS . Be prepared for this. We could be doing something great here playing a grandmaster's move or we could be making a potential elemantary blunder . Our team MUST be sure we're making the right choice before we do anything else wrong .