Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:23:17 12/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2000 at 12:32:58, Oliver Roese wrote: >On December 14, 2000 at 08:48:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 14, 2000 at 07:24:04, Oliver Roese wrote: >> >>> >>>Of course you dont want to do this against humans at _any_ time, i think. >>>From my own experience in short time controls i can "tell", that an open >>>position can compensate the computer a pawn, at least againtst me. >>>Even in games between strong humans it is sometimes to, so this rule is not >>>so ridicolous how its sound at a first glance. >>>The weaker side has then so much possibilities to create threads, that the >>>stronger side cannot make progress. >>>It would be interesting to see if this is really so, but i dont have the >>>time to check that out... >>> >>>Oliver >>> >> >>I don't agree with your "at _any_ time". Humans are not a "solved problem" >>yet, and they can get into positions where they have all the chances. If a >>program tries so hard to blow things open, when the human controls all the >>key squares, I would call this "self-immolation". >> >>Going down in flames is one thing. But doing it by setting yourself on fire >>is something else. > >Personally, if i were a computer i would rather sacrifice a pawn >to get him in an open fight, since these humans do not understand very much >if it comes to the big things to think about. >But this is only my opinion. > >Oliver Just to disspell what might be an incorrect opinion you have, GM players are tremendous tactical calculators. Computers don't always out-calculate them by any stretch of the imagination. In positions where pieces are hanging everywhere and attacking everywhere, computers are tough. But I have seen GM players calculate a long forcing line that no computer has a prayer of seeing...
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.