chessmaster pwns me
Sort:
does anyone think that my position was ever good for me? becuase the chessmaster game chart suggests it never was... in fact that it was always very bad. im not sure if thats a sign that santasiere's opening is a losing opening, but i don't think im going to give it up... it makes things much more interesting.
Jul 3, 2007
0
#2
i'll be honest - i wouldn't play that opening. seems like you are behind from the start.
did u ever beat chessmaster??? he's like SO HARD
i think it's a complicated opening for a human to play but then again it might be the only way to give yourself a chance at beating cm. Unless u played that opening a million times u might not want to try it against cm.
ya the opening seemed bad i have been having trouble getting a good opening 4 me i understand some like the sicilian dragon ruy lopez and a few others but i need help finding the right 1 4 me if any1 has any ideas please let me no
well i played poorly against chessmaster with it, of course. but would it do so bad against a human opponent? im not so sure
Jul 3, 2007
0
#7
Chessmaster is very strong (although other engines like Fritz are better). If you're actually playing against the Chessmaster personality, and you're on a fairly new computer, I'd estimate that you'd have to be at least an IM (International Master, 2400 FIDE) to stand a chance. That said, the Chessmaster ratings are considerably inflated (i've defeated "Rand", rated 2181 on my system.. and I am NOT close to being a 'real' 2100 :)
So.. you can forget about beating him, but you can still learn from it, of course. Overall, the Chessmaster program is really a great tool for learning. The 'Academy' really does have lots of interesting stuff.
you almost won but lost
but that doesn't answer my question... do you think that santasiere's folly is a losing opening for white? obviously it can't be losing absolutely but is it worth my time learning and maintaining it as my most common response to 1.Nf3 d5 ?
i wouldn't play it, you've got to worry about defending a wing pawn from the start, when your play should be directed toward the center. i think its 2nd move is to aggressive though and would have played 3 Nxe5. you were never winning after your 2nd move, though some of its play wasn't logic.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Santasiere's Folly (1.Nf3 d5 2.b4).
I like more defensive games, and and b4 doesn't really do much for me(doesn't attack the center, only frees the bishop, but blocks the a3 diagonal, gives black free reign over the center). Fianchettoing the queen-side bishop with 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 e5 3.Bb2 would be better imho (the The Nimzovich-Larsen Opening, intending play on the central dark squares) but is still a poor opening (usually played as 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 Bg4 3.Ne5 Bh5). I'll have to sit through a few of Santasiere's games to see how he uses it though. I'll update the post and let you know 
Jul 4, 2007
0
#12
I've never heard of Santasiere's Folly before. But I think folly is the right word to describe it! 
Why put yourself at a disadvantage by choosing a dubious opening line? There are plenty of sharp openings that offer better chances than playing a poor gambit.
you try it against someone who isn't a computer and you tell me...
i still think that the opening had nothing to do with the end result... fending off chessmaster is no picknick(tactical wizardry of the likes ive never seen) and i think i had a winning endgame position (or at least drawing) until i totaly lost it in the endgame against chessmasters infinent knowledge of the subject... (plus, in a tournament, i probably wouldn't last 10 minutes)
i agree with sonofpearl!!! you were dead from the start. I personally wouldn't play that opening
quality chess is build-up of strategic important advantages from which winning tactics flow. that 2. b4 is like handing the White pieces to Black or worse.
im going to keep playing it and winning with it so ; P
Me....I think it is a great opening!!!!!!!!!