Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 06:37:55 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 07:52:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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 Yes, a very interesting problem. Don't know what to do in such a situation. The 100:1 time odds game between Crafty and Rebel comes to mind. Crafty avoided lines that Rebel had no idea of - and lost. May be Crafty could avoid the loss by playing non optimal lines. Sometimes it's better to know less :-) Kind regards Bernhard
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.