Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:09:34 06/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1998 at 11:48:15, Amir Ban wrote: >On June 10, 1998 at 10:44:05, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On June 10, 1998 at 06:39:35, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>I don't know anything about suicide chess, but at some level it becomes >>>poor strategy to assume that your opponent will make mistakes. >> >>I think if the computer see that the opponent has an adventage of more >>than >>2 pawns it is better to assume the opponent will make mistakes >>otherwise the computer can do moves that do not give it a practical >>chance >> > >According to my statistics, when I evaluate -2, I still expect to score >about 20%. This is pretty bad, but far from hopeless. My strategy would >still be to play the best moves against the best possible answers and >hope for the best. > >Maybe there are exceptions. The best example I can think of is when the >computer sees that it loses to a combination that the opponent >overlooks, and makes a losing move to avoid this. I don't believe it's >something worth considering since I've never seen this happen. Computers >are usually better at seeing how they lose when they are already lost >anyway. Another example is simplifying to a completely lost endgame when >the alternative looks bad, but this is an evaluation problem. At icc against humans you are far from the loss when the program sees how it gets mated. Have seen masses of people missing how to mate. The only problem is that it gives away material in order to delay it. Also masses of games i get out of book with -0.80 down to -2.xx That's not nice of course a pawn down or more, but usually those are positions where tactics rule. It's better to be a pawn down in a position where tactics rule than to be a pawn up vice versa. Enfin, it all depends on who you're playing. >Amir
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.