Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:27:25 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2000 at 10:08:30, blass uri wrote: >On June 15, 2000 at 09:02:40, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On June 14, 2000 at 15:06:49, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2000 at 13:46:20, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On June 14, 2000 at 10:30:37, Hans Gerber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 14, 2000 at 09:53:03, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 14, 2000 at 09:14:25, Hans Gerber wrote: >>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>Did you see a situation before where a >>>>>>>computer rejected to win material? No please, not again the examples where also >>>>>>>Crafty rejected such pills. >>>>>> >>>>>>I saw cases when programs sacrificed material for positional advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>>The first game when a program sacrificed material for positional reasons was >>>>>>played in 1974 and most programs of today cannot find the right sacrifice >>>>>>in tournament time control. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Please give us some more details about that incident. Which program? What >>>>>position? Positional reasons? Please, I must know what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hans >>>> >>>>[D]rq2k2r/3n1ppp/p2bpnb1/8/Np1N4/1B3PP1/PP2Q2P/R1BR2K1/ w >>>> >>>>This position is from the game Chaos-chess4.0 from 1974. >>>>Chaos played Nxe6 and won the game. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>[D]rq2k2r/3n1ppp/p2bpnb1/8/Np1N4/1B3PP1/PP2Q2P/R1BR2K1 w kq - 0 1 >>> >>>I hope that the diagram now has no problem. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Why is this a demonstration of the rejection of a possible material win? >> >>Here are my thoughts about that position and the game. >> >>The position is theory and was already theory in 1974. I think that the game >>shows very well that already _then_ the opening preparation was most important. > >I read that Chaos found Nxe6 by calculation and not by opening book. That is correct. Nxe6 was not a book move. I was there. It is in several of Levy's books. However, you are in a hopeless argument... > >> >>However if you look at the game you see that CHAOS did not "understand" the >>position. Is it not funny how CHAOS later refused the direct win with Bd6? > >programs were not strong in 1974 and could miss tactical moves that today >programs have no problem to see. >The point is only that they could make sacrifices for positional reasons. > >> >>For me this is a typical example for a computergame. >> >>Once let alone beyond the forced opening moves the machine starts to play weak >>chess. Fortunately the position is so good here that the machine can not destroy >>its advantage. >> >>Interesting also that CHESS 4 still became second in that tournament. The USSR >>program KAISSA won. >> >>I wished someone could tell us more about for example the programmers of CHAOS >>and CHESS. I saw some CHAOS games in my database coming from the nineties. Was >>that still the same program? >> >>Perhaps this game here is also a good example for those who doubt that the >>actual micros are really strong. What is their strength without the large >>opening section? > >I think that sacrifices in the opening are not very common and there are many >cases when programs can find opening moves without book. > >I do not think that the large opening section is so important because it is easy >to get programs out of book in a few moves(kasparov tried it against Deeper blue >and played openings like 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 with black). > >If the micros main strength was their book humans could win easily micros by >this tactics. > >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.