The java computer is forced to play a bad move now and then, seemingly randomly, to make the results (win/loss/draw) resemble what you'd get against a human.
And while the results may be similar, as you can see the way it plays is completely artificial. (Sometimes you will notice it will give up a knight for no reason).
This is true to some extent with all engines by the way (not blunders so much as artificial kinds of moves). The best practice is against real people.
The java computer is forced to play a bad move now and then, seemingly randomly, to make the results (win/loss/draw) resemble what you'd get against a human.
And while the results may be similar, as you can see the way it plays is completely artificial. (Sometimes you will notice it will give up a knight for no reason).
This is true to some extent with all engines by the way. The best practice is against real people.
I know this, but I've had real people do this as well and many proffesional players do it. Thanks for the feedback though.
Oh, well yes, sometimes it's good and real people play it :)
An example position would be good.
Usually it's to f1 or f8 and mostly it's because it's actually safe there for the time being. Then either the king-rook is good where it is, can get into the game quick enough, or the lead in development / initiative is such that there is compensation for the king-rook being out of play for quite a while.
The point being that if castling was played it would delay / reduce the good things going on in the position for that player. (And sometimes when the center is locked, the king is safer in the middle and also development matters less).
Give a concrete example (which was not played by a weak computer) and we will be able to tell you why that move was played.
But sometimes the king is safer in the center than it is on the king/queenside. And both moves help to bring the rook out of the corner.
It realized you were a patzer after move 5.
It realized you were a patzer after move 5.
For what reason? I'm a novice, yes but that is no big deal, I'm sure you were an exited novice once like me.
Castling is often overrated imo. I find the king is an excellent piece in both defence and offense, not to mention catling can sometimes leave you one move behind your opponent. I try to only castle when necessary. Obviously in this case the java computer messing up is more likely.
Thank you for all the answers. This helps me a lot, I find things like this so interesting!
I used to have a chess program back in the 80's. Was ridiculously weak.
Was programmed "Move thirty. Endgame. Start centralizing king." Regardless of the position on the board.
Was funny.
Like, you bust his king open, chase it from g8 to say, c6. Then move 30, that king woukd turn right around, start headong the other way.
Took me a while to figure out it was always on the same move#.
.
Here is a game between Fischer and Petrosian from 1970 where Fischer (white) has a strong attack aimed at black's kingside. If Petrosian (black) castled his position would fall apart pretty quickly, so he decides to move his king over one square. But of course Fischer wins in the end anyway. It's a practical illustration of an actual game where it would not be beneficial for a player to castle because it would compromise his own king safety.
Petrosian was a master at King play. It would help everyone to study some Petrosian games.
quitcks coming froma 900ish rated person is really ?? castling is very importent ok? not "unneccecary" yeah theres some cases but castling can connect ur rooks leading to development leading to you attacking leading to you winning
I usually do it to impede the power of my opponent, being able to pin pieces to my king, be it a knight , pawn, etc. Also, you can avoid a check, if you see an imminent capture, instead of losing the game, or even more material, in the case of a windmill tactic.
Why?