Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 15:12:17 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 15:49:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 14:01:23, Joe McCarro wrote: > >>If I were playing someone over the board and they seemed to give me a >>possibility to play Bxa1 snatching the rook I would think long and hard before >>doing that. I'd figure as long as this isn't a trap I will win the game. Let me >>take my time to just make sure its not a trap. I wonder if this couldn't be >>programmed in. Anytime the other player makes what on the surface appears to be >>a blunder (e.g., drops over a pawn) the computer could spend extra time working >>out the position before moving. If it ended up it was in fact just a blunder >>presumably the computer should still be able to win despite the extra time spent >>looking for the tactical shot. If it found it wan't a blunder the computer >>might avoid taking the poison. Do the programmers do anything like this? Would >>this in fact be helpful or would it have disadvantages as well? > > >There are two choices here: > >1. They made a blunder hanging the rook. > >2. after due consideration your opponent decided that either the rook could >not be saved, or it could not be captured without exposing you to lots of >difficulties. > >In choosing which of the above is true, you would need to know your opponent >and his FIDE/whatever chess rating... Not really. If your opponent were a Patzer the extra time won't hurt. Your program will still beat him. If he were a GM, you could assume case number two, and it would be wise to take a longer look. So the choice that benefits either way is to take a longer look. The question is--How much longer? kp
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.