Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:35:28 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 06:21:54, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On October 15, 2000 at 23:44:03, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>If by consistent you mean boring, then I have to agree. > >Richard Lang Chess = boring but consistent. > >>We are not going to spend the rest of our lifes looking at Genius-style chess >>programs, are we? > >if the old paradigm is true, we have to die watching boring lang chess. > >>There are strong chess players, including Tal for example, who have said that >>they have sometimes played sacrifices just because they felt it would work. > >>Human players think this way, we could maybe learn the lesson. > >right. > >>It is known since ages that a strong king attack can be worth more than a piece. > >>If a chess program is not able to value a strong king attack this high, then it >>is missing chess knowledge that even a 1700 elo player has. > > >exactly. Rc6 is a typical example. a normal chess player considers about >such a move. ask chess players about the move Rc6 and they will >say: easy job. >same for gambit-tiger. it plays those moves without much thinking. >same counts for cstal. > >its trivial. No It is not trivial for cstal. I learned from Sarah's post that cstal does not find it. I am not sure that it is trivial for humans. I did not see humans sacrifice material against Deep Junior in the dortmund tournament. I believe that most humans (including grandmasters) do not know to create the positions when there is a king attack. Maybe buying gambittiger can help them to learn to play for king attack. 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.