Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:43:21 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 1998 at 19:50:30, Serge Desmarais wrote: [snip] > But at long tactics or "true" sacrifices, computers aren't too good. In one >game Tal sacrificed a piece against Smyslov. In the book (was one of a friend, >so I don't have it here) Tal was giving Smyslov as being lost after the >sacrifice. I have had Genius look at the positions from about game moves after >the sacrifice and for several hours. Almost all the way, the program was seeing >SMYSLOV as winning, until after about 10-12 moves, it SAW that Smyslov was lost! >Then, I went back, letting the program "think" for about 1 hour on the position >PRECEEDING the sacrifice. It was preferring the same losing move as Smyslov did! >Here is another example : Bronstein playing a chess program (would have to >search to fing which one) in an Aegon's tournament. Bronstein sacrificed a piece >and blasted the program tatically! I tried the same position on my programs and, >as I remember, they saw nothing good for Bronstein in that sacrifice, though >later they admitted he was winning. What is fun in that is that Bronstein just >took a few seconds (at most 1 minute) to make the winning sacrifice. After the >game, he just said he KNEW it was winning and did not have to calculate >anything! In fact, he had so much experience with such positions that his >brain/instinct was telling him that it was winning! So, some GMs are so good at >tactics that they don't need to always calculate everything when in familiar If the GM just "knows" it, it's not tactics to them, just pattern knowledge (or intuition). Though I concede that we might still think of it as tactics. :-) >waters. I myself had a great win against Chessmaster 4000 in the first half of >the 90's. It claculated a very pretty combination that took me by surprise and >won one of the pawns on my castle : I hadn't even seen that! After that, >tripling the pieces on the g-file and, I got the initiative and the advantage >and managed to win! There was also a nice sacrifice I made against a weak I posted a couple of games recently where I was able to use an open g-file to launch an attack on Crafty. I know that Bob has put in code to avoid 1...Bxa2 2.b3 traps of bishops. I wonder which chess programs have been tuned to avoid or express concern about this sort of attack (g-file exposing opponent's king, but also an open pathway to its own king). >computer Advanced Chess Challenger Voice), in 1984, that gave me the win. >Accepting the sacrifice means losing : it takes 12 plies for Fritz 4.01 to not >accept the sacrifice (though even for me, who is not even an expert, it is >EVIDENT just at the first sight that it is not good at all to accept the >sacrifice! > > The only way I see that a GM could have trouble against an amateur player is >if he underestimate him, not paying too much attention to the game nor taking >his opponent seriously. > > >Serge Desmarais
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.