Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:28:56 09/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2003 at 12:16:19, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On September 16, 2003 at 11:54:09, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On September 16, 2003 at 11:50:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 2003 at 08:38:33, scott farrell wrote: >>> >>>>On September 16, 2003 at 06:25:59, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 16, 2003 at 06:10:13, scott farrell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>[d] r3r1k1/1b3pbp/2p2np1/1p1p1q2/pP1Pp3/P1P1P1PP/1B2QPK1/3RRNN1 b - - 0 107 >>>>>> >>>>>>If a human is playing white, and just moves d1d2, and d2d1, can this position be >>>>>>broken open? >>>>> >>>>>Without analysis I dare to say the position is completely lost for white. >>>>>h5,Bc8,Bf8,Bd6 >>>>>Black is more or less a piece up and should win. >>>>> >>>>>Michael >>>>> >>>> >>>>Isnt that roughly the line crafty played that I showed below. But I dont see the >>>>continuation, and neither does crafty. >>>> >>>>How do you stop white from playing d1d2, d2d1 ? >>>> >>>>Scott >>> >>>In this position almost any move order will finally stop white from playing >>>d1d2,d2d1 because checkmate ends the game :) >>> >>>In principle your program should avoid pawn chains against humans. >>>If your program plays for example 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 (no book of course) or >>>1.c3 e5 2.d4 e4 then there is something wrong. >>> >>>Michael >> >>That is the crafty approach, and it certainly works. I'd rather teach Zappa to >>understand them, though. I don't see any reason why a computer can't play closed >>positions well. Its just a matter of writing some eval code. >> >>anthony > >In closed positions long-term plans are often important and this is not a matter >of writing some eval code. Why do you assume that long-term plans cannot be described by some eval code? The same target may be achieved by more than one way. Uri
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.