Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:10:11 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 07:34:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 29, 2001 at 07:17:45, Mike S. wrote: > >>On May 29, 2001 at 03:47:13, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 2001 at 01:16:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 2001 at 00:58:44, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>[D]r1b1Rbk1/pp3p2/2np3p/2qp2p1/3N4/1QPB3P/PP3PPB/6K1 w - - >>>>>(Sorry if this is discussed already.) >>>>>In this position Ferret played Ne6!!, which I found really stunning. (...) >> >>>>Ne6 is *grotesquely* superior in my book. >> >>>I believe that Ne6 is not GM style move. >>>There is no reason to calculate complex lines of Ne6 when there is a simple way >>>to win material and the games. >>> >>>I believe that GM calculate complex lines when they need them to win the game >>>but they are smart enough not to do it when there is another simple way to win >>>because the target in the game is to win and it is better to be more sure of >>>winning. >> >>This may be correct from the practical viewpoint of a human master, but would >>you like computers to play like that? It's not attractive... from a spectator's >>viewpoint, I do not need that kind of smartness :o) >> >>>When you calculate a complex line there is a risk that you are wrong so it is a >>>bad idea to do it when you have another good option. >> >>Hm... Fritz goes for Ne6 too. > >I posted some analysis of Deep Fritz that proved that Fritz did not go for Ne6 > >Uri Someone else let it run longer and it found it. This is just a case of Ferret's extensions working very well. I saw this same kind of deep tactical win from Deep Thought in several ACM events using singular extensions. Not in every game, but in enough to know it was influencing the outcome in a very significant way.
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.