From | Message | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
![]() I think most of the players here don't use engines, not counting those rated over 2000. www.wired.com I have not read all the article yet, but am curious how AI might be restoring the beauty of chess. |
||
amacivn 15-Sep-20, 14:41 |
![]() |
||
|
![]() We've never played. |
||
amacivn 16-Sep-20, 02:29 |
![]() |
||
|
![]() It's a fun game, and I think we pretty much see eye to eye on that--though I admit I love the conditional moves. I have no problem programming them, or responding to them. I still take all the time I need to make my moves. I especially like programming conditional forced mate situations--there is no reason an illness or internet issue should cause me to lose a game I've clearly won. But I also like programming opening moves, exchanges, and obvious responses. I don't use conditionals all the time--or even most of the time. If I look through my logs I'd estimate less than 5% of my moves are programmed. I also program obvious blunders on the part of my opponents. They rarely (if ever) make the bad move, but if they do--I absolutely don't want to forget to take advantage. So a good fraction of the moves I program never come to pass. I'd guess between 60% and 80% do--again common openings and exchanges. No sense dawdling. Plus it helps, ever so slightly, with my average time per move. We should play some time just so I can have the experience of playing "not as we know it..." Plus, haven't you made insightful comments on some of my annotated games? I appreciate those. |