Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess.Com vs Houdini!


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #281

    Scottrf

    Yep Laughing

    That's 66% success though IMO Cool

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #282

    ChristianSoldier007

    no that would be 2 wins and 1 loss

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #283

    Scottrf

    My point was I consider it a failure to only draw, I'm not debating the maths.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #284

    ChristianSoldier007

    oh i see

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #285

    Kullat_Nunu

    Re1!

    - overprotects e5 and enables White to play dxc5 without worrying about their e5-pawn

    - frees the f1 square for the bishop (in case it gets disturbed by Nb4, e.g. after Black exchanges pawns cxd4, cxd4)

    Re1! ftw (imo)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #286

    thecheesykid

    Re1

    You guys should probably stop looking at opening books now, with this position only played like 6 times before, they're pretty worthless. Re1 is a logical move, developing the rook, ensuring protection of e5.

    We might also want to start thinking of moving the f-knight so that we can push f4 at some point, it's a common plan in the French.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #287

    ChristianSoldier007

    Re1 Be7 played. You have until 8 tommorow to submit your vote. Remember, all votes in red

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #288

    Twpsyn

    Scottrf wrote:

    83% success from 3 games?

    Yes I've been wondering about that! 

    After thaught it works:

    33.33%/2 = 16.665

    16.665+66.66

    83.3% --  The openings book is vindicated

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #289

    Scottrf

    Twpsyn wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:

    83% success from 3 games?

    Yes I've been wondering about that!  Two wins and a draw gives 88.67%.  Unfortunately it doesn't give the details of the games, it's an openings book.

    Na it is right, 2.5/3 = 83.3%.

    Just depends whether you consider a draw a success Tongue out

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #290

    Twpsyn

    Scottrf wrote:
    Twpsyn wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:

    83% success from 3 games?

    Yes I've been wondering about that!  Two wins and a draw gives 88.67%.  Unfortunately it doesn't give the details of the games, it's an openings book.

    Na it is right, 2.5/3 = 83.3%.

    Just depends whether you consider a draw a success

    Defeated once again by simple math...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #291

    Twpsyn

    Anyway back to the chess I vote Nbd2.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #292

    thecheesykid

    Twpsyn wrote:

    Anyway back to the chess I vote Nbd2.

    I think Nbd2 gives away an advantage after black takes the d-pawn and Nb4, forcing the light-squared bishop to either go to a bad square on b1 or to be exchanged.

    I vote Qe2 trying to provoke c4, closing in the center followed by 10. Bc2. We all know engines do poorly in closed positions, let's see if we can't get it to go into one.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #293

    jetfighter13

    I am with Typswn on this one, Nbd2

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #294

    Kullat_Nunu

    dxc5 seems to be a very strong move. Their bishop must move again (Bxc5), and then White can grab some space on the queenside (b4!) without any risk. Maybe the b-pawn can then also chase away their knight, and this will reduce Black's pressure on White's e5-pawn.

    dxc5!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #295

    nameno1had

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    Houdini plays 1...c5

     

     


    I find this interesting. Houdini is in analysis mode and wasn't given an opening to play its defense from. It choses the Sicilian Defense. When I force Chessmaster to play itself, making it use the Dunst Opening, but making it chose how to defend it, it immediately plays c5 and transposes to the Sicilian. That is cool to me that they see it the same. It makes me wonder why when I play the Sicilian, I always feel like it is very even and I have to be very carefully, though the computers seem to agree it is very strong. Maybe I am not agressive enough.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #296

    fluffy001

    Be3 it develops a piece. no harm in that.                                                        

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #297

    ChaoChinKun

    dc

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #298

    Roeczak

    Nbd2

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #299

    waffllemaster

    Computers aren't tuned to evaluate opening moves at all.  A program's preference of 1.c5 over 1.Nf3 for example is unrelated to the objective value of the move.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #300

    nameno1had

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Computers aren't tuned to evaluate opening moves at all.  A program's preference of 1.c5 over 1.Nf3 for example is unrelated to the objective value of the move.

    For some reason, probably because I have a splitting headache, but also because I haven't really studied how engines are programmed to function, therefore, I really don't picture what you are saying very well.

    It seems to me by raw calculation, an engine will chose a response that is most likely a book reply to an opening. If it doesn't perhaps these replies could be considered as such. I see how they may chose lines that aren't as good as book openings, but something tells me that they could come up with positions that could possibly be comparable, in terms of effectiveness.


Back to Top

Post your reply: