Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 04:52:35 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 07:35:44, guy haworth wrote: > >An interesting situation! > >On the one hand, if you assume that your opponent is infallible (e.g. HAS the >EGT), you will want to avoid the EGT situation. At least in my example case, the opponent wins easily if you avoid the TB position. :( Even in _less_ moves than the TB would have required, because he now has QNN vs. NP instead of only NN vs. P. >On the other hand, if you assume that your opponent might be fallible (i.e. does >not have the EGT) you could go - as you did with the hard-to-win 'EGT' situation >in preference to the other. > >If an 'infallible opponent' would also win the non-EGT situation, maybe it is a >'no brainer' situation but certainly one where you have to override the >computer's automatic avoidance of lost EGT-positions. It seems to be a problem of computers in general - they assume their opponent is always 'optimal' according to their own standards, and so they can get into trouble because of this. If the program searches 50 ply in the middlegame (a ridiculous example, I know, but it makes the point) and sees a spectacular winning combination for the opponent, it will sacrifice a piece immediately with a better score, but will go on to lose easily. It's possible that the opponent didn't even see the combination, and the piece loss wasn't necessary. A very interesting problem... Jeremiah
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.