Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 21:15:30 10/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
> Now I understand better what Chris Whittington calls "the Hyatt paradigm". :) > I'm sorry, I never thought I would one day share CW's point of view, > but you are pushing me in that direction... > > Gambit Tiger was not certain that 43.Rc6 was winning. Actually it might > even turn out that this move is incorrect. I don't know. > > And you know what? I DON'T CARE. Few threads back you mentioned how you don't think that a successful attack requires objective advantage. I was puzzled by that seemingly "anti-scientific" statement, but your comment above clarifies it nicely. As long as you're playing against imperfect opponents, Gambit Tiger (or CST) will, under the right circumstances, make a move which unbalances the position, with objectively unclear outcome, hoping it knows better how to work within the particular kind of imbalance, e.g. with kingside attack. If GT has a very good knowledge and fast algorithms for the king-side attacks, it stears the game to such positions, even though the conventional truncated minimax may be telling it it isn't a good idea. So, GT is drawing an opponent into a kind of position it confident it can compute better than its opponent. It is like a small guerrilla force drawing the larger conventional army into the kind of terrain which nullifies the advantage in firepower or manpower. Since the current anti-computer strategies do show that most programs don't judge well the dangers of king-side attacks, the GT concentrates on strengthening its computation/knowledge in that type of position, hoping it can do it better than a more conventional program, regardless of what the "objective" value of its position may be.
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.