14254 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!
Shredder says Nf2, which Rybka played, made a difference between keeping its advantage and falling into the pit of disadvantage, which Houdini then exploited and won with its new-found advantage. Houdini sacrificed pawns like crazy (relative material apathy for a computer). But it's as if Houdini could have seen a critical moment that was sharp and deciding to go for it.
Indeed, Houdini plays weird before f5 attacking the knight on e4. But maybe Houdini is so positionally well versed that it sees how the unclear position could have an advantage to it.
So have we been too materialistic and should think it's more correct to play in a way where we force our opponent to make moves--moves that play into our plot of "zugzwang forcing" via aggressive tactics that create new questions in a position that an opponent can easily answer wrong?
Anybody else like the idea of getting their opponent in an unclear/potentially zugzwangy position?
It's interesting to see how houdini was willing to sacrifice two pawns, only for what seems to be actively placed pieces. Although like any computer it can be victim to the horizon effect, it doesn't seem to be a very materialistic engine.
I wasn't trying to make a Houdini commentary thread. I was more interested in the validity of playing for a sharp, critical moment like the above position that I posted seems to be. Where would you have moved that knight that was on e4? Notice that it's not the computer playing Black that has to answer that question, so the computer playing White was the one that got a chance to screw up.
Where would the knight go after 1.Ng3 or 1.Nd2?
hey, Yereslov my apologizes for calling you out, im sorry man
It doesn't really matter in the long run.
Ng5 may be the best.
At last I have heard the sound of one hand clapping.
Yes, use chess moves in a way to pose zen questions to your opponent in chess position form.
Such as, "What was the position before the game started?"
Nah, attack accurately placed pieces and force them into less accurate places.
Why do I not see Andy's avatar?
Do I need to raise my conciousness another level?
Nah, just put your glasses on.
He's back . . . everyone's back!
I may have been abducted by aliens, must check for probes, back soon . . .
Romantic style of chess: Houdini telling us to go back to it?
"FIDE Grand Prix Round 10 - Hosts: GMs Evgeny Miroshnichenko & Viorel Iordachescu "
5/25/2015 - Mate or Queen
by doctorcheckov 3 minutes ago
Unknown Chess Pieces
by Nordlandia 3 minutes ago
Players the wrong rating
by notmtwain 11 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Irinasdaddy 12 minutes ago
How many use "En Passant?"
by MelvinDoucet 15 minutes ago
3/22/2015 - Mate in 2
by opettet-743 20 minutes ago
Are tactics really the way to go?
by Ramona-Carbona 21 minutes ago
Chess book for travelling
by watershoot 43 minutes ago
Sacrifice in the Najdorf
by trinav 43 minutes ago
Top three most effective opening traps?
by vishal3011 51 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!