Author: Mark Young
Date: 14:20:01 08/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1998 at 13:18:49, blass uri wrote: > >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? > So you think white was better or equal after Rh5. Ok i will take your word for it. >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.