Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:07 06/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2001 at 12:00:41, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On June 12, 2001 at 09:16:58, José Carlos wrote: >[snip] >>If you allow transpostion from non-book positions, you can get the behavour >>you discribed. But if you don't, you have to face the possibility of a human >>player transposing to drive you into a trick. >>I'm at work, so I can't figure a real example, but imagine that, in the >>example you gave, axb5 was wrong due to a deep trick. A smart GM could drive >>you into that position, and the Crafty would (possibly) take the bishop >>happily. >>So, the way you do things, you'll take the piece and win easily most of the >>times, but can fall into a trick, and lose badly in an important game. >>Allowing trasposing always, you'll miss those easy wins (but you'll probably >>win anyway, since a player that gives a bishop for free will always lose >>against Crafty) but avoid the GM trick. > >I would consider this "optimizing at the wrong places". While I can imagine that >such an example exists, I don't think it's worth the time. :) It actually turns out to be important (for me) to do this. Otherwise it is possible for a GM to "offer" Crafty the chance to remain in book by playing a move out of sequence, and dropping it into an opening it has tried to avoid (such as the Stonewall). If it is out of book, it will _not_ fall into a stonewall attack. But while in book, anything can happen. I have some opening lines that avoid most stonewall attempts very quickly, but a good GM or IM used to find ways around this. It is much harder to do now... > >I've always imagined that, should I ever play against Kasparov and see an >unprotected queen from him for no (for me) obvious reason, I still wouldn't take >it, because I'm sure there _will_ happen something bad if I capture it. Of >course something bad will also happen if I choose another move, so it doesn't >really matter. :) I trust the search to find this kind of stuff. :) > >Btw: Wasn't it GM Larsen who once played against Deepthought, captured an >unprotected knight and then DT announced a mate in 18? possibly... > >Sorry I got carried away a lil here. I realize that all these cases are not the >same, but still they're related a bit. > >Regards, > >Sargon > >-- >One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. >"Which road do I take?" She asked. >His response was a question: "Where do you want to go?" >"I don't know," Alice answered. >"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter." > > Lewis Carroll > Alice In Wonderland
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.