Author: Jay Scott
Date: 11:21:42 01/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 1998 at 05:55:41, Amir Ban wrote: >Sharp positions are often drawish, because of Mutual Assured Destruction >and other effects, while quiet positions are often quietly won by one >side. Which is true, of course. But as Don Dailey wrote in a different thread: >I've noticed this 80/20 thing a lot in chess programming. There is >no substitute for "doing it right" but if you cannot, then try to >do it halfway! I don't mean "half assed" I mean try to cover the >basics even if weakly. To me, it seems that knowing whether the position is sharp or drawish is one of the basics. Understanding drawishness gives you more choices. For example, when you're better you can sometimes choose whether to play on "with the draw in hand" and avoid all risks or to go for broke. A program that doesn't understand drawishness can't make the decision, rightly or wrongly. >As for humans claim of being able to play for a draw, here's a true >story: In one league season the club where Junior plays decided not to >put its strongest player on first board, but someone rated 2350. The >reason given: He can get a draw against anyone. The result was a >disaster, and they didn't try it the following season. Yes, it sure is hard! Just last month, in a game where he only needed a draw, Adams sacrificed a pawn against Short and ended up losing. But just because world-class humans make these mistakes is no reason for programs to make them too. :-) Jay
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.