Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:31:46 08/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1998 at 09:48:10, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >In the threads "CSTal Win95 needs only 62 seconds to reject Qxg7 , so what ? " >and "So What?", there is a discussion related to this topic. > >In the past, there have been many comments in the chess literature to the effect >that it is easy to win against a chess engine simply by starting an attack. The >engine, supposedly, cannot see far enough ahead, so gets whipped. > >One would suppose, based on the above assumption, that chess engines would also >be poor attackers, also for the same reason, that they could not see far enough >ahead. > >But, in the above threads, it appears that the engines being discussed [Crafty, >etc.] do find the positional preconditions for attack, [&, presumably, also >sense danger in the same way] and make moves based on the programmer's desire >for his engine to find an attack. > >Presumably, if an engine senses that the preconditions for attack are present, >it's programming might cause it to look deeper into attack lines. > >Similarly, if an engine senses that some but not all of the conditions for >attack are present, then it could be programmed to search for ways to cause the >remaining preconditions to become met. [This is positional chess!!!] > >For defense, the above two paragraphs apply except that preconditions for an >enemy attack are detected and the engine might be programmed to search for ways >to eliminate the preconditions [also positional chess!!!]. > >The above merely speculates on what engines might do. > >So, the question is: To what extent do existing chess engines do the above? >Are modern chess engines quite good at attack and defense? If so, what are the >real reasons for that? > >Just curious. I think chess programs are better at defense. The Junior 5.0 Vs GM Yudasin is a good example of this. Junior 5.0 attacked Yudasin’s kingside when there was no positional justification to base an attack. This cost Junior 5 a pawn and could of cost Junior 5 the game except for computer programs ability not to get upset or nervous and just play the position. Here the patience of a chess program can do wonders. Junior 5 saw a chance to draw the game through pure calculation and did so. I think defense takes more of a tactical touch and that’s where chess programs are strong. The attack can be much more speculative and that’s where human intuition can be much more of an advantage.
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.