Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Are computer ugly looking moves better moves?

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 13:05:42 07/01/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 01, 2002 at 12:44:02, Mike S. wrote:

>On July 01, 2002 at 01:54:03, Telmo Escobar wrote:
>
>>On June 30, 2002 at 04:22:06, Mike S. wrote:
>>(...)
>>>[D]r1b1k2b/pp1p3p/2p5/3Nqp2/2B4Q/8/PP1P1PPP/n1BK3R w q - 0 16
>>>16.Nc7+!! A typical computer move.
>
>> Alas, how can you call this a computer move? 16.Nc7+ is the first move I think
>>about!
>> This example makes me suspect the very idea of "computer move" is based upon a
>>misunderstanding.
>
>Normally, a chessplayer won't think first about a move which looks like a
>blunder (Qe5xNx7), at least for a few milliseconds. The knight goes to a guarded
>square and is "simply" lost (not so simply, as it turns out a few 100.000
>calculated positions later). It's not at all the "normal" Nc7+ fork.
>
>It's a *19 ply* combination. So if you saw it immediatly that Nc7+ is playable:
>Congratulations ;o) I guess the next you saw was ...QxNc7 which should have
>raised some doubt, at least for the following minutes.
>
>Such a move will be a riciculous blunder in 99.999 of 100.000 cases, that's why
>I call it surprising, and computer-typical because programs find it very fast.
>
>Regards,
>M.Scheidl

I believe that most humans will play Re1 that is also enough to win the game.

Uri



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.