Author: Howard Exner
Date: 17:37:36 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 12:53:21, Mark Young wrote: >On August 02, 1998 at 11:43:05, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On August 01, 1998 at 21:10:27, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On August 01, 1998 at 10:38:35, Howard Exner wrote: >>> >>>>On July 31, 1998 at 15:06:30, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>Results of games 1 thur 5 >>>>> >>>>>Crafty 0 0 0 0 0 >>>>> >>>>>Fritz5 1 1 1 1 1 >>>>> >>>>>This game is a good example of Fritz 5 ability to attack queenside, for anyone >>>>>who has not seen it before. Capped off with a nice long-term pawn sac to cash in >>>>>its positional plus. >>>>At this point of the game instead of Ne1 the move gxf4 suggests itself. >>>>This way the passed h pawn does not become a reality for black. >>>> >>>It does seem there should be a way to draw this, but position is like a Chinese >>>finger puzzle. There might be some subtle defense that I am just over looking, >>>but I was unable to save the game for white. I let fritz have a shot at it and >>>here’s what it came up with. >>> >>>67. gxf4 exf4 68. h3 b2 69. Ne1 g4 70. hxg4 hxg4 71. Rb1 gxf3+ 72. Kxf3 Na4 73. >>>Kg4 Rd7 74. Nf3 Rg7+ 75. Kxf4 Rg2 76. Rh1 Nc3 >> >>Since this is a solid winning line for black also, it makes the entire sequence >>of moves starting with 65. ... a3 all that more attractive. In the analysis >>you give 67. ... exf4 as the proper recapture (not gxf4). This recapture >>would be a routine matter for humans as they would see, without much >>calculating, >>that exf4 gives a kingside pawn majority. Computers must calculate instead >>of "seeing" that common pattern. I find this an instructive ending. >> >> It's interesting how calculating moves and positional knowledge are >>intertwined. Computers often resolve or mimic positional knowledge >>by simply going deep in their calculating. We on the other hand rely >>on positional understanding to assist us in "seeing" the course the game >>may take. >> >>> >I have come to the same conclusion, but think of it in a different way. I think >its us human who mimic long term tactical calculations with are unique ability >to understand positional play. I agree with that. I intended the interpretation you have given on how we "see" (not see clearly but intuitively). Sometimes I use the analogy that knowledge is like a road sign during a country car drive in the fog (or during a snow storm if you live in those climates). The sign provides the driver with a clue as to what is coming ahead - we know the curve is ahead but we can't see it.
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.