Author: Robin Smith
Date: 16:31:56 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 17:37:48, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On May 18, 2000 at 13:45:08, Robin Smith wrote: > >>>>On May 17, 2000 at 23:33:21, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>most Gambit benefit programs most of the time. >> >>I don't think this is true. Open positions favor programs, but gambits don't >>necesarily favor programs. Most programs don't avoid exchanges when down >>material. They also usually avoid additional sacrifices of material to keep the >>initiative. They also don't understand positional gambits. Unless the program >>SEES compenstation for the material sacrificed it will likely not play the >>gambit well. Just playing any old gambit won't do. > >I did not meant to say Gambit in the same sense of an Opening gambit, what I >meant to say is that if the programmer write a subroutine which enable the >program to detect when the position is locked in the middlegame which will >trigger it to sacrifice a pawn in order to open up the position in order for the >program to excel tactically. > >Jorge Pichard There is no doubt that a computer should keep the position open when playing against a strong human (if the computer is going to win). I think there are more effective ways for a computer to keep the position open than gambiting a pawn. Crafty is one program that makes it very hard for a person to get a closed game. Sometimes it involves a gambit, but usually this is not required. Just trading pawns before they advance to form a locked position will usually keep the position at least somewhat open. Robin Smith
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.