Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Why?

Author: Slater Wold

Date: 05:57:33 04/15/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 15, 2002 at 07:27:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On April 15, 2002 at 03:35:07, Slater Wold wrote:
>
>>[D]2r4k/1p3p1p/1pn2q2/1N1p1p2/8/PP2Q2P/5PP1/2R3K1 w - - 0 26
>>
>>Why in this position is it not perfectly clear that taking the pawn (Qxb6) is
>>the obvious move?  Instead I've noticed several programs wanting Qf4, a4, and
>>other moves that to me, just seem to waste time.
>>
>>I've spoken with one GM, (2550ish) and he agreed that Qxb6 is the only move that
>>he would emphasize on.  (It was a quick discussion, no detail.)
>>
>>This is move 26 of game one in the first match between Deep Blue and Kasparov.
>>Deep Blue played Qxb6 and later won the game.
>>
>>
>>
>>**I've tested only a few "top commercial" programs.  Most want Qf4, a4 and
>>others at first, and around 1:30 want Qxb6.  My question was, why isn't this
>>obvious from the start?**
>
>A program with a speculative evaluation might think, gee, after the pawn
>capture, black's attack might just work! So better not grab it.
>
>A program with a nonspeculative evaluation might think: Donuts! Yummy!
>Eateateat.
>
>So, all those 'great attackers/new padadigm-whatever programs' will now fail to
>simply win a pawn.
>
>This is the other side of all those speculative wild attackers. It works both
>ways.
>
>--
>GCP


Good explanation.  You and Uri's explanation is completly understandable.
Thanks guys.  ;)



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.