Author: blass uri
Date: 10:18:49 08/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1998 at 11:31:46, Mark Young wrote: >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. I am not sure about it. black won a pawn but the black king seem to be weak. I do not understand the position enough to decide that black is better if black was better then what was the mistake of black in the game? Uri > 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.