Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 11:33:47 12/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 1998 at 04:50:28, Harald Faber wrote: >On December 15, 1998 at 03:06:54, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>From the replies to the posting I read so far about this trick subject, it seems >>that the majority of chessplayer think that real sacrifices are unsound and it >>should not be played, and that because of this the chess engine does not play >>it. > >To make a long story in a short answer: >Sacs are hard to refuse OTB. That is the only reason some masters and GMs play >some. They pull up some confusing struggle knowing that the opponent won't be >able to save the game because of 2 aspects: 1) king safety/ under pressure >(=psychology) and 2) time. Maybe the GM knows that the sac is unsound. He plays >it becasue he knows there is only one defence and the opp won't find it. >In corespondence chess you have to be much more carefully. >The only programs playing risky sacs are the ones that have a sound eval for >king safety and attacking potential, MCP, The King, WChess and CSTal come in >mind for that case. MAYBE Junior5. Fritz won't play it unless it is sure to win >material. :-) I have found over 150 real sacrifices in the openings that are unclear and could be played in correspondence games. There are about 5 new ones a year. The highest positional compensation for minor piece sacs is 2 pawns worth with very few exceptions. I have written an article about this and was intending to publish a book on it but couldn't find a publisher. -- Komputer Korner
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.