Using Chess-Engines

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
muabdib
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 10:04 am
Location: Black Forrest, Southern Germany

Using Chess-Engines

Post by muabdib » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:20 am

The actual programs available from ChessBase like Junior/Fritz8 or Shredder (the others are far less effective) are highly overestimated. Based on an experience of over 120 games in ICCF-tournaments (where using programs like the above mentioned is allowed) I can tell you that only in the hands of a high rated player (over 2300) those programs might be helpful. In the hands of a low rated player those programs are simply worthless, cause that player would never know when to rely on the analysis of his engines and when not. I recently won an IM-tourney (averating of my opponents was 2350) of the ICCF (5 wins,5 draws and one loss) and the decisive moves in the games I’ve won I had to find out myself. Of course the Nalimov-Tablebases are unbeatable, but before reaching those positions (5 pieces-endgames) you’ll have to use your own brain.So please stop worrying about the use of a chess-engine of your opponent. If you’re the better player your opponent won’t have a chance to win against you.
BTW having played against many of the top-rated players on that site I can say that you'll have to subtract between 400 and 600 rating points from the Slow-Chess ratings to get approx. the corresp. ICCF-rating.

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

using chess engines

Post by juselton » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:28 am

The only game I can recall on slowchess between an engine and one of our strong players was the game that took place a few years ago---Bret vs CM 8000 (one of the less effective engines). Bret went down on move 12.

Of course Larry Christiansen went down to a CM 9000 (another of the less effective engines). I dont believe these machines were aided by humans.

When these programs are entered in GM tournaments I think they play unassisted (they decide rheir own moves, strategy etc. ). Some program recently won a tournament in South America.

Im just guessing here but I think the programs that have been drawing the top GMs (Kramnik-Kasparov) in recent years are making their own moves. If so, the lower rated player could turn the engine loose on you and eat you alive.

There is a strong cc GM (Arno Nickel) playing several programs Shredder, Fritz8, etc.
He is struggling to draw the match. These programs are playing on their own---there are no strong masters helping them decide on the proper move. Here is what Nickel says about postmen---Postmen can work with a lot of power, they can go to a depth of 20-up to 30 (shredder). They have some computer knowledge though not much about chess.

Sounds like he is saying---give a weak player a shredder, a little computer knowledge and he will hand you your asks on a platter.

hamot
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 6:48 pm
Location: Onalaska, WI
Contact:

Re: using chess engines

Post by hamot » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:52 am

juselton wrote: Of course Larry Christiansen went down to a CM 9000 (another of the less effective engines). I dont believe these machines were aided by humans.
Who is Larry Christiansen?

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:53 am

All of the computers involved in the computer chess chamionships, and the games against grandmasters are top of the line systems devoted to nothing other than playing chess.

In tournys like the Net-Chess Open all of the players will be playing 10 games at a time, in Bret's tourny they'll be playing four at a time. So anyone wanting to use a computer to generate every move for them is going to have to be pretty motivated.

I'm not sure why computer cheating is always associated with correspondence chess either. It's just as easy to take a Pocket PC to an OTB tourny and head to the bathroom to use it. And when there's real money involved, there's always the "toe switch" style computers that people have already been caught using to cheat at blackjack.

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

engines

Post by juselton » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:16 pm

Who is Larry Christiansen? Hey guys---I rest my case!



gmiller---are you saying the fritz you buy right off the shelf and put on an "average" (whatever that means) computer will not play at a very high level?

hamot
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 6:48 pm
Location: Onalaska, WI
Contact:

Re: engines

Post by hamot » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:59 pm

juselton wrote:Who is Larry Christiansen? Hey guys---I rest my case!
So Who is Larry Christensen?

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:18 pm

gmiller---are you saying the fritz you buy right off the shelf and put on an "average" (whatever that means) computer will not play at a very high level?
Sure it will play at a high level, but you can't automatically generalize a program's performance on a quad CPU system to what everyday mortals have in their home.

I don't know who Larry Christensen is, but I found this with a simple Google search: http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2002 ... 3161.shtml

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:25 pm

If that link just pulls up a subscription page click the first URL on this page: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

engines

Post by juselton » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:58 pm

Larry Christiansen is a three time US chess champion. The last time was 2002. I'm curious guys---do you ever pick up a chess magazine and look through it, or a chess book? Do you ever visit your local chess clubs and talk chess with the guys? Do you ever enter a chess tournament? Do you ever surf the net visiting other chess sites and forums?

Have you ever heard an avid baseball fan say who is Barry Bonds?
The statement made earlier by GM Nickel that one doesnt really have to know much chess to play a strong game in cc kinda rings true---don't it.


gmiller---Sir, you lose me when you start talking computer talk. My knowledge of computers is zilch. My son bought me the computer I'm using and its four years old. Of quads and cpus I know zilch but You did answer my question. A chess program will play at a very high level without any special equipment and the guy using it doesn't really have to know that much about chess.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Larry Christiansen

Post by davidswhite » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:22 am

Larry Mark Christiansen is an Int'l GM who about 10 or 12 yrs.ago had obtained an ELO rating of some 2620 but whose real talent is in blitz chess and most reecently in 2002 defeated Nick de Firmian in a tourney in Seattle to win the US blitz championship.
Just after that,he joined this site to play 1st board for one of our chess-team tournies.
He won a bunch of games and then allowed his losing position games to time out.
I know because my team was in the tourney and I had to play a 2 game match against him.

muabdib
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 10:04 am
Location: Black Forrest, Southern Germany

To juselton

Post by muabdib » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:46 am

To believe that a chess-engine might do to become a successful CC- or Email-player - even for somebody who doesn't know that much of chess - gives a pitiful evidence of your own understanding of chess. Nr. 1 of the world ranking list Ulf Andersson - everybody knows - is playing without any technical assistance. Anyway it doesn't make sense to me to reply to your messages any longer. Have a good time.
[/quote]

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:12 am

Mr. muabdib, how kind of you to talk to someone so pitifully ignorant as me. I feel like I am unworthy to be in your presence. However, I seem to recall the present CC world champion saying he has used chess engines in his CC games. GM Nickel is certainly developing a respectful attitude towards chess programs. On Sept 15 he started a match with Hydra.

Of course one is reminded of the Israeli computer programer (and this was four years ago) who (as an experiment) went undefeated 7/7 through the Israeli CC 3/4 Finals with the clandestine use of computers. After the tournament he said he believes the programs are just as good as CC-IMs and also have chances against CC-GMs. these are the players he beat; CC-IM Pinhas Azar (2456), Michael Surin (2279), Dov Razenburg (2474) etc.
He mentions that he used several computers---chessmaster 6000, Rebel, Junior 5.9. Sir, even you must realize that in the last four years chess programs have improved at an exponential rate. In fact they have improved so much I believe an ignoramus, such as myself, would, most likely, clean your clock!

You say Ulf Andersson is playing without technical assistance---how do you know? Wake up and smell the coffee my friend, they're all using technical assistance. Does the man call you and tell you "hey, dib, I'm not using technical assistance. Are you guys buddies?

If you decide to reply ---please , no conjectures, opinions or daydreams. How about the facts pal! have a nice day :D

wulebgr
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: PNW USA
Contact:

Re: Using Chess-Engines

Post by wulebgr » Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:42 pm

muabdib wrote:So please stop worrying about the use of a chess-engine of your opponent. If you’re the better player your opponent won’t have a chance to win against you.
BTW having played against many of the top-rated players on that site I can say that you'll have to subtract between 400 and 600 rating points from the Slow-Chess ratings to get approx. the corresp. ICCF-rating.
If you are the "better player" and you are above a certain level, you can beat the engines at correspondence play. But for most of us patzers, a cheater can gain an unfair advantage. Still, in the long run, the unfair practice hurts the cheater more than the cheated.

If muabdib's arithmatic is accurate, then ICCF ratings are inflated compared to IECC. My IECC rating is 700 below my current rating here. The practice of no longer playing anyone under 2000 keeps my rating here inflated, however. In IECC, I play in swiss events where rating pirates on the rise from 1300 can steal my numbers.
Wulebgr

“From a fish’s point of view, a wulebgr is a leech.”

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:20 pm

I'm surprised no one has asked muabdib about his use of engines in tournaments. Perhaps he will respond-perhaps not but let me be perfectly clear---the man's reputation is beyond reproach.


Muabdib, apparently,you have much experience in using machines in tournaments. In fact, you describe winning such a tournament---although you say you made the decisive moves at crucial points in the games. That could mean many things. One could imagine a player letting the engine take the game down to mate in one and then jumping in at the crucial point to say "Checkmate!"

So enlighten us, which programs did you use in these master tournaments and how many programs do you own. what is the strongest program on the market today?

One last question---two people are playing chess. One is rated 2350 and the other is rated 1800. The one rated 2350 is using a fritz 5.32 and the 1800 player is using the Fritz 8. Their personal computers are comparable. Who wins?

jstripes
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:56 pm

Post by jstripes » Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:34 am

juselton wrote:One last question---two people are playing chess. One is rated 2350 and the other is rated 1800. The one rated 2350 is using a fritz 5.32 and the 1800 player is using the Fritz 8. Their personal computers are comparable. Who wins?
Just comparing the two engines, Fritz 5.32 can sometimes hold its own against Fritz 8.

Right after I bought Fritz 8 I ran a practice double-round robin engine tournament for test. The results surprised me.

Crafty 19.01 | -- | 1 0 | 1 1/2 | 0 1 | 3.5
Anaconda 1.0 | 0 1| -- | 1/2 0 | 1 1 | 3.5
Fritz 5.32 | 0 1/2 | 1/2 1 | -- | 1/2 0 | 2.5
Fritz 8 | 1 0 | 0 0 | 1/2 1 | -- | 2.5

Both versions of Fritz did well against Crafty, but Anaconda crushed Fritz 8, while losing to Fritz 5.32.
"The voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. . . . See the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Broad agreement with the original post, but...

Post by cornstalk » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:00 pm

This topic is often a contentious one, because it attracts a certain kind of iron-jawed person :evil: convinced that he is more righteous than everyone else, that his opponents are cheating and that correspondence chess is dying because of computers :cry: . He sees computers beating top GMs in quick over-the-board matches and perhaps doesn't know enough about the difference between correspondence chess and sudden death over-the-board to draw the necessary conclusions.

Personally, I doubt the existence of anyone who is deeply interested in chess and yet (1) does not enjoy thinking about chess moves and (2) does not want very much to get better at the game. Since simply posting the moves of a machine does nothing to satisfy either desire, I doubt very much that anyone is doing that. Oh, all right, there may some tormented soul out there in a shack in Idaho, cradling a Henry rifle, munching on raw bear fat and doing exactly that, but he would be the exception that proved my rule. These "postmen" that I hear people talk about exist only in their uncharitable imaginings.

Let us allow that one can have a lot of experience analyzing chess with computers and not be what some people would call a "cheater" at correspondence chess. These days, there is no one doing serious openings investigations, or deep annotation of chess games, who does not use a chess engine to facilitate his analysis. I will add that for myself, I do not mind at all if my opponent is using a computer to help find his moves. I want the strongest opposition that I can get :wink: !

While I agree broadly with muabdib's original post, I think that whether computers are useful in cc depends on what someone is using one for.

Richard Reti was once asked, "How many moves do you think ahead?" and he replied, "As a rule, not even one." What he meant was the majority of moves in chess are made based features of the position that are clear to a strong player, general principles, and intuition. This is not to say that the move is automatic or easy to find: only that finding it does not require calculation. Computers are getting much better at finding moves in such positions, but I must agree with muabdib that anyone playing at the IM level will consistently find better moves than the computer. I will add that if anyone is letting his moves in this kind of situation be decided by a computer, he is only retarding his development as a chess player.

There are further other kinds of decisions that arise in highly dynamic situations, requiring calculation but also requiring judgement about what sort of move could possibly be good chess. Here one has to calculate (just as Reti would have had to), but MERE calculation is unlikely to produce the best answer. It happens so often, when using a computer to analyze this or that postion, that the machine is very sure that a certain move is good when, on its face, it is bad. A weaker player using a computer might think that such a possibility were worth investigating, and he would take considerable time and trouble to discover his error, if he discovered it at all.

So intuition and general principles guide the selection of chess moves even in the midst of tactics (perhaps most importantly, even in imagining tactical shots). That is why a strong player without a computer, at least one devoting full attention to the game, is likely to outplay a weak player using a computer.

I do think that computers are very useful for analyzing tactical situations, if one has sufficient chess strength to keep the machine in harness. That, I think, is what muabdib was saying. I would probably go further, though, and say that even weaker players can improve their play in tactical situations by seeing what the computer thinks about the position. It seems that the logical conclusion of my reasoning is that between two players of equal strength, the one using the computer WITH WISDOM will have some advantage in tactical situations (though if he is trusts the machine too much, he will often be led into bad mistakes).

You know, in many places on the web and in a few books, you can see analysis that is informed by not very much chess understanding but by a great deal of computer-assisted calculation. It usually smells a little funny, and it is rarely better than analysis by an IM or a GM. That doesn't mean, however, that computers don't aid analysis.

muabdib
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 10:04 am
Location: Black Forrest, Southern Germany

Post by muabdib » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:27 pm

I fully share this excellent analysis of computer-assisted chess.Computers may be very useful sometimes but only for a player who exactly knows when and in which position to bring them into action. Chess-engines are useful idiots and nothing more.

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:22 pm

Well, I would have to add they are something more than useful idiots. They are useful idiots "and" probably the best players on the planet.
When was the last time Kasparov or Kramnik defeated one?

And even in Correspondence Chess they they are gaining in stature.

When Reti was asked "how many moves do you think ahead?" he replied "As a rule not even one." When Shredder was asked how many moves do you think ahead he answered " As a rule maybe 20 but on a good day 30."

When Shredder plays Reti---bet the farm on Shredder!


Chess programs are made by people. People are not perfect. Chess programs are not going to make perfect moves in every game. Some computer moves are going to be ridiculous. But so too are human moves. Look back in chess literature at all the ridiculous moves great players have made. Chess literature abounds with such material.

I read somewhere that a very strong CC GM had started using an engine in his games. He wasn't using it to generate his moves but after hours of hard work and nervous energy expended he wanted to make sure he had not ruined all his efforts by a stupid mistake. So he started blunder checking his moves. He said he now gets a more restful sleep without the tossing and turning and the assurance that he has not let a simple little error ruin his game. Come on muabdib! dont you think all these other GMs want a good nights sleep too!?

tellymetwise
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:48 pm

Post by tellymetwise » Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:47 am

Juselton, I can't really figure out where you want to lead this thread to.
Do you want chess engines allowed at slowchess or do you want to write to chessbase, and others, that you want chess engines banned from earth?

Both would seem to give you that peaceful sleep.

lmac
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:58 am

Post by lmac » Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:37 pm

does any one else out there have any more bear fat... it seems that I have run out of it... thanks :roll:

bret
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 1999 10:19 pm

Post by bret » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:11 am

I've waited a while now to chime into this thread. I couldn't post when the thread started because I didn't want to cuss so much. I can hold back now :-)

I really do not know what to think about computers execpt that I really do not care if they are used against me anymore. As a side note ... ANYONE who looks at the Chessmaster8000 vs bret where I resigned at move 12 can clearly see that a serious post error was made on my part. It was not because the computer beat up on me. It takes Chessmaster a good 15 moves to do that! You will also see these same errors in the second round of the net-chess 2000. Some of my opponents should be able to recall that I did not have my computer, Compaq had it for repairs that took a very long time. I played my games from my girlfriends house and sometimes I called her and she made the moves for me. She is not a chess player and Nd4 or Ne4 is all the same to her. You would think a move is simple but non-chess players sure can mess it up. I have messed up a few on my own just from not paying attention.

I know a few people that use computers here ... no ... I will not rat them out. It first made me mad when I played someone (who really cannot play) from my home town who played by the book for 20 or so moves, then had a great sac against me for the win. When I asked what was up he told me "it's finally coming back to me". This is a person who once told me that he played chess 15 years ago. I had beaten him 200 times with my eyes closed and when I got him to this site I won the first four games .... then out of the blue he beat me ... with excellect play. Three days later I see the new Chessmaster 7000 at Wal-Mart. After I got home with the program ... it didn't take long to figure out that I had been beaten by Chessmaster.

The point being that Juselton is correct in a way that computers will help a non-player ... be a player. How good of a player I do not know.

Now here is a funny story that I have never confessed before! About the time I realized that I had lost to Chessmaster 7000 ... was the time during that "get paid to surf" that everyone now believes was junk. You remember .... Alladvantage? Well, I hit a couple of webmasters up on that program (Greg was one of them) and made a nice bit of money. Besides net-chess, another site I had under me was Chesslab.com. I used his site to download games and pointed out some flaws in the program he has there. He told me that his program should play above 2300.

When I first joined this site you could not select your rating to start with. 800 was it. Yes the rating for your first 20 games worked right, but everyone had very low ratings. I worked very hard to get that top spot on the rating list while the ratings were low. However, two players by the name of energy and cornstalk had other ideas. Well ... I am a true student of the game and I knew I didn't stand a chance against these two because I knew who they were. Thinking computers are great, I challenged cornstalk and he gladly accepted. I used the computer at chesslab and cornstalk soundly defeated it in one of the games. In the second game the computer said I was up about +1.60 when Mark asked for a draw because of the Absolute ... yes I know who LC is too! It was hard to give the draw thinking of the rating points because he would have timed out. I noticed a lot of his opponents took the time out. I gave the draw only for good sportsmanship. After going over the game for about a month ... I found a draw was the most I had!! I felt so bad about using that computer program and now I am so glad to see you state "I will add that for myself, I do not mind at all if my opponent is using a computer to help find his moves. I want the strongest opposition that I can get !" Although I did feel good about not winning with it.

Now after expending all of my energy that I got from the bear fat, I can now get to the reason of my post. I believe that good use of a database is better than using a computer. I have a secret database that I believe is the best thing since butter ... ok, so it doesn't beat whip cream but what does? I gave a few friends access to this database by email. They would send 54 in the subject line and page 54 would be sent back to them. Needless to say when an email from Greg telling of the start of a match came in ... 54 was part of the number of the match. Page 54 use to be my largest page. There were some other page numbers in the match ID also ... so Greg ended up getting a load of email. Remember that Greg? Ah ... the good ole days. Thanks to me you now have bounce@net-chess :-)

I guess you can call me an useful idiot.

I'm going to sign off now before I start sounding like Sam Sloan.

By-the-way, Deep Shredder is working fine on my new 8 PCU 3.5G system. Oh yes, also good luck to everyone in the net-chess 2004 :-P

--bret

chessonly
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Test

Post by chessonly » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:39 am

i get beaten by chessmaster 5000(comprehensively) that too at moderate level :( , but i hav no patience with computers so my games last only a few minutes.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Message for bret

Post by cornstalk » Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:46 pm

Well, bret, that is a pretty good story! My memory has always been a blunt instrument, and I have to admit that I sort of remember playing someone named "bret," but I don't remember a thing about the games. I would appreciate your sending me the games if you have them (post them here or write to cornstalk at columbus dot rr dot com).

And no, it does not trouble me in the slightest that I was playing a computer. I like strong opposition.

Also I think somebody can learn a lot about chess from working with a computer. But like I said, I think that if someone takes their moves straight from a computer without criticism, he is unlikely to learn much.

Best, and thanks for the good story. I did not do very well in that Absolute, by the way.

bret
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 1999 10:19 pm

Post by bret » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:53 pm

Thankfully, my memory serves me well enough that I located the game which you won. I'll keep an eye out for the other game.


1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 (b5 8.cxb5 a6 1-0 m.morss-r.potter 1999/(35)) 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Re8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxd5 Ng4 12.0-0 Nxe5 13.Bf4 Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Bd4+ 15.Kh1 Nd7 16.d6 Nb6 17.Nb5 Bxb2 18.Nc7 Bxa1 19.Qxa1 Bf5 20.Nxa8 Nxa8 21.Bh6 f6 22.Bd5 Kh8 23.d7 Rg8 24.g4 Nb6 25.Bxg8 Nxd7 26.gxf5 1-0 cornstalk-bret 1999.

As you can see, back then the program over at chesslab was not all that strong.

I do agree that just posting the computer moves will not help a person learn.

Just to let everyone else know ... My comments about Deep Shredder and the net-chess 2004 was a joke. :shock:

ramesis
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:22 am

Post by ramesis » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:31 am

Dear Bret,

Before I joined net-chess, i used to play with computer chess whether handheld or from PC programs.

I almost always beat the handheld but for the PC programs when they get to the 10 plus levels you would really have to sweat it out. beyond 14 level you are in strange territory, they make one move per day, which is when I stop playing them.

I have played the net chess computer and i always get bamboozled when we enter the middle game, i can hold my own in th opening but the deep combinations, i get fritzed, is the correct term?.

Any way, I do not care if my opponent uses a computer program, I am of the old school, I play to my strength purely from my experience and analysis. I read books on openings and other such chess literature, and I will always play old style here in net -chess as if playing over the board.

I get thrilled when ,i get wins specially with higher rated persons. but i do not shirk playing opponents having ratings 1000 point below mine. They need the practice and learning as I did when I started playing chess in 1960.

Yours, Truly,

Ramesis : :wink:

ramesis
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:22 am

Post by ramesis » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:39 am

Dear Bret,

Before I joined net-chess, i used to play with computer chess whether handheld or from PC programs.

I almost always beat the handheld but for the PC programs when they get to the 10 plus levels you would really have to sweat it out. beyond 14 level you are in strange territory, they make one move per day, which is when I stop playing them.

I have played the net chess computer and i always get bamboozled when we enter the middle game, i can hold my own in th opening but the deep combinations, i get fritzed, is the correct term?.

Any way, I do not care if my opponent uses a computer program, I am of the old school, I play to my strength purely from my experience and analysis. I read books on openings and other such chess literature, and I will always play old style here in net -chess as if playing over the board.

I get thrilled when ,i get wins specially with higher rated persons. but i do not shirk playing opponents having ratings 1000 point below mine. They need the practice and learning as I did when I started playing chess in 1960.

Yours, Truly,

Ramesis : :wink:

Post Reply