9921 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Its very good for white. In fact im starting to think that it is a forced win for white if played correctly
Sorry but your thinking is wrong here.
Please refer to my exhibition some months ago on chess.co where I took Black against the best Centaur players I could find.
The fact that you played computer-aided chess and apparently won with Black proves what? That he is wrong? If someone tells you that the sky is purple, you don't need a whole lot of computer simulations to work out something that can be ascertained by simply looking up.
And besides just how do you know he is wrong? His assertion that the King's Gambit is very good for White may well be based on his playing experience. He very well may issue forth the King's gambit over the board and win constantly, does anyone know what strength he plays at over the board and what sort of chess time limits he prefers?
His definitive statement that the Kings Gambit is a forced win for white if played correctly is about as misinformed and lacking in any real substance as your assertion that he is wrong based upon on you winning computer assisted games. Your try to present evidence that at best, has only a causal link to what he said (ie I played computer assisted chess as Black and won so therefore you are wrong) based on something that is factually incorrect to begin with.
The computer age has a lot to answer for....
What if a tetrachromat tells us the sky is purple and we trichromats lack the capability to discern the purple?
As for computers even as far back as the 90s one defeated Kasparov (albeit by one point, but still!) I think computer consistency won and that match teaches us that lack of consistency (or being less consistent) could make us lose to people we have superior positional and strategic understanding over.
Since machines have a limited horizon effect Kasparov could outcalculate (only depth wise, not overall and certainly not as fast) the machine at times. People are effected by so many different variables whereas a machine simply applies its algorithm with great consistency.
7/5/2015 - Lasker - Alekhine, London 1913
by turkhuu_5 3 minutes ago
first to finish gets a trophy
by Shravani_Patil 4 minutes ago
How to exploit a very slight space advantage
by ponz111 9 minutes ago
strength attainable without theory
by Diakonia 13 minutes ago
KG accepted question
by Fiveofswords 13 minutes ago
Why do Sicilian players hate 2.c3?
by Fiveofswords 20 minutes ago
A quick analysis anyone?
by Charetter115 22 minutes ago
an italian repertoire for players under 1200
by SKh94 25 minutes ago
When a coward refuses to resign.......
by Meet_Your_Sensei 26 minutes ago
YOUR IQ compared to" World Chess Champion" Garry Kasparov ..
by bobbyDK 27 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!