Years ago I wrote reviews for the online chess site Chessville.com. That was something that I put a lot of work into and really enjoyed.
Even though it has ceased publication, you can still visit Chessville, via The Wayback Machine - there is a lot of very interesting, helpful and entertaining content there.
(Plus a lot of my reviews and short stories.)
One book that I reviewed was The Final Theory of Chess (Philidor Press, 2008) by Gary M. Danelishen, which the author, himself, described
The Final Theory of Chess is an attempt to lay a solid foundation upon which further analysis may be built in order to reach the first goal of a partial solution to the game of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted and The Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. During this time, a network of six computers running the Fritz family of computer chess programs continuously calculated around the clock. Each previous round of analysis laid a foundation upon which future analysis was conducted…
"Stockfish Shows Leela His Jerome", a computer rated 3880 vs one rated 3860
and
In the first game, Black adopted the "silicon defense" and prevailed in 69 moves. I don't suppose that is the "final theory" on the Jerome Gambit - after all, if it took a computer rated 3860 almost 70 moves to defeat the Jerome...
In the second game, we saw that giving "Jerome Gambit odds" could be risky, even when playing an opponent rated about 400 points lower - at least in the silicon world. Computers can be harsh: I once figured that about 200 points would be enough for a human playing the Jerome Gambit to preavail against a human opponent.
No comments:
Post a Comment