Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:20:11 02/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2002 at 11:42:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>I see active play not as allowing a weakening of the position as >>such, but more as a tradeoff of 'fixed' positional advantages >>(pawnstructure e.g.) versus 'dynamic' advantages (space, development). > >re-read what you just wrote: tradeoff of "positional advantages such as >pawn structure, etc vs space and development." Pawn structure is forever. >Space/development is often temporary. I don't think so. If my dynamic advantage forces you to weaken your pawnstructure to not get mated/lose material, your 'forever' advantage is suddenly gone. Moreover, how sure are you of your static advantage? Deep positional pawnstructure understanding is not something computers have ever been showing great understanding of. >By the same token, if you allow (or your opponent forces) the dynamic >component to go away, you are left with a losing position. That is all >too common in wild attacks on the kingside. It's also very common in wild attacks to mate the opponent. >But only if your opponent is not searching _deeper_ than you. If he is, >he isn't going to make those "mistakes" and your "concessions" are going to >return to haunt you later. I don't see why searching deeper than your opponent necessarily implies that you aren't going to make any mistakes that will come to haunt you...right now! >>Making mistakes in a dynamic position doesn't have to be a result >>of short-sightedness. Far from it. Many times the consequences of >>a move are so deep that it is impossible to correctly determine >>them. You have to guess. Speculative evaluation. The better guesser >>wins. Seeing x ply deeper will allow you to make more educated >>guesses, but you'll still be guessing. > >But I'll take that more educated guess any time I can... I'll take the _best_ guess any time I can :) >Nope... but programs like fritz and gambit tiger don't have a huge >knowledgebase built into them, just some evaluation rules that tend to >trade material for mobility and king proximity of the pieces, and so forth. >They therefore trade definite positional weaknesses for "guesses" about >attacking potential. That is dangerous to an opponent that is searching >shallower than you are. But not to one searching deeper. It will often >find the right defensive moves and then let you demonstrate how you intend >to proceed with a wrecked pawn structure in a simple endgame. Perhaps. I haven't looked at ChessTiger's code, and neither do I have any kind of positional understanding, so I'm at a loss to determine if what you say is right or not. -- GCP
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.