Author: blass uri
Date: 02:11:02 06/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 1999 at 01:04:56, KarinsDad wrote: <snipped> >You are confusing two things. A 2 or 3 pawn material advantage and a superior >position. If a particular 2 or 3 pawn advantage does not lead to a win, then it >is not an advantage, is it? You can say by the same logic that if 1/10 pawn advantage leads to a win then it is a mate advantage and not 1/10 pawn advantage <snipped> >The main question is as follows: With all we know about chess, why would it seem >that a 1/10 or 1/2 or 1 pawn is NOT enough advantage if it is acquired early >enough in the game? Is it true that these types of small advantage are >insufficient to ensure victory (assuming perfect play)? Or is it just that >humans do not have the intellectual capacity to turn such minor advantages into >a win. I believe that it is the latter, but it seems most likely that it will >never be proven one way or the other. C'est la guerre. It is possible that humans sometimes do not have the intellectual capacity to turn minor advantages into a win but it is possible by the same logic that positions that humans believe to be a win for one side are really a draw and humans believe that it is a win only because they cannot find the right defence. I do not see a reason to believe one case more than the other case. 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.