Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 10:32:09 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 13:20:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 02:46:23, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>Another position like this is LCTFIN08 (Louget II test, Endgame #8): >> >>[D]2k5/p7/Pp1p1b2/1P1P1p2/2P2P1p/3K3P/5B2/8 w >> >>If c5 is not played, a bunch of piece-shuffling will happen. At least in this >>one it's possible to play c5 later (in at least one of the other positions, the >>move had to be played immediately, or it could never be played) and so the >>50-move rule would help. However, it'd be nice for several obvious reasons to >>be able to play c5 more quickly. > >Remember, the first goal is to win the game. If a pawn push is required to >win, does it really matter whether the pawn push is provoked by some obscure >'weariness' evaluation term, or by the 50-move rule? Yes, moving the pawn >sooner would make the game end sooner. But since the game result doesn't take >into account how many moves the game lasted, this really doesn't matter when you >look at the big picture. > >Cray Blitz won many games based on its specialized draw scoring algorithm. But >it took a lot of time to win those games... In all of the other positions I posted, the win occurs not by a pawn push but by a piece sacrifice. That is the point - a program should be able to recognize when the material is getting you nowhere, but if you sacrifice a piece you can still have a (more) winning position.
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.