Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 20:41:35 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 14:24:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 13:32:09, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>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. > > >We won an important game in the 1986 WCCC because of this. We were a pawn up, >but saw that we could either repeat, or give up a pawn to continue. We had >chosen to give up the pawn as we were still better without the pawn. It >_could_ have done it immediately, like a GM would have. Delaying until after >the second repetition didn't hurt a thing, other than to burn some time. In a lot of these types of positions, it's fine to do that. However, there are some positions (like the Qd1 position I posted in this thread) where the move must be made immediately, or it can never be played. In positions like that, it can be important to recognize when no progress can be made (without sacrificing a piece or something), and try to do something different.
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.