Chess to me needs a philosophical justification and some major rules of etiquette. I am very interested in the psychology of chess and its players. The good thing is that when you blunder and lose, your number does not go down, so you risk nothing! I think the whole rating thing makes chess much less fun and distorts people's view of themselves, and others. I find that playing Boris improves my game and Boris is not annoying (unlike many opponents online).
So better to play against a computer that does not blunder, at least very often. If you consider that even GMs make lots of mistakes, you have to admit that humans are overrated! If you win when your opponent makes a mistake, does this make you a better chess player? Not at all. Sure, this may explain why it is not so hard, but I just enjoy winning without stress! Boris is not so easy either. Stockfish has a very good endgame but you will only draw if you blindly take it's advice. Chess games can be very pretty when they are well fought by both sides. Boris' end game is not quite as good as a human chess expert. You can win however with the right spatial strategy, even without a sacrifice. Easier to win against a more aggressive player if you know what you are doing.īoris plays very good tactical chess. I also play, Boris level, which is more fun and easier than stockfish. These are mostly games I played against the computer using level 10
0 kommentar(er)
