Author: blass uri
Date: 10:00:02 09/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1999 at 18:25:02, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On September 01, 1999 at 12:41:41, Alan Grotier wrote: > >> >> >>At what negative evaluation figure is it reasonable to assume that a chess >>program can nolonger defend the position and will lose the game? > >The answer is dependent upon factors that are not typically accounted for in the >score. The score can be -10 and not take into account some of these factors. > >For example, if the program is playing a weak player, it can have an objectively >lost position and still win more than half the time. If the opponent is running >out of time, especially in a zero-increment game, the game will often be won on >time. If the program is up material but is getting mated, often the score is >extremely negative but a small mistake by the opponent will spoil the mate and >lead to an absolutely won position for the computer. > >One area where humans can learn from computers is psychology -- the computers >don't have any. They do not despair and lose interest in the game. Many humans >expect the opponent to despair when losing, so they begin to play sloppily and >let the game win itself. This is effective against humans since when they are >losing they don't really want to play, and will just wait to be killed. It depends on the human. I do not feel like that. I remember 2 cases when I was 2 pawns down at tournament time control and was almost sure that I am going to lose but I did the best that I could and drew the game. I remember cases when I won from a lost positions. If the position is bad enough then I resign but if I am playing then I do the best that I can and do not wait to be killed. 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.