Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 05:22:18 09/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2000 at 23:59:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Probably the closest thing here was what Berliner did in Hitech: > >Assume that you search to depth=N, and for plies 1 thru N-1, move X is >best. But suddenly, at depth=N, X fails low. If you can't recover the >original score by playing another move, most programs play the best move >they can find, which often just loses in a very obvious way. Hans would >play move X, since it was best until the last iteration, which means it is >_not_ obvious why it is bad. > >Against computers, that might be awful. Against humans? It might work. > >One classic example came up in a game Cray Blitz vs some 1800 player at the 1984 >US Open speed chess championship. We had beaten several masters and IM players, >and with Victor Korchnoi looking on, we played this 1800 player and out of the >clear blue sky, CB gave up its queen for apparently nothing. Korchnoi was quite >astonished as were the rest of us. He commented after the game, "computer make >horrible blunder, just trade rooks and it wins easily." I tried his suggested >move and CB responded instantly with a mate in 10 for the opponent. Korchnoi >was even more astounded, and several of us had a long discussion about this. > >It gave up a queen to avoid a mate in 10 it saw. Would an 1800 player see it? >Of course not. And Berliner's scheme would have worked quite well. It's still a big dilemma for common clubplayer too, even when a 1800 play against a 1500 : have the stronger player play is normal style (play the stronger move) or play more attacking and agressive moves (sight that the weakest player will not (or less) understand the position.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.