Author: Telmo Escobar
Date: 20:53:42 07/02/02
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 When I think first about a move, I don't care about material. My first concern in this kind of position is about to get important squares, lines or rows, to deviate hostile pieces, etc. 16.Nc7+ looks obvious because Black queen is forced to go far from the arena, while my remaining pieces work together against the lonely Black king. I smell blood. To be sure, if I have enough time to calculate variations I'll think about other moves -mainly 16.Re1- as well, and indeed it's likely that, provided other move is evaluated as winning, I'll play the dull move, following the rule that "apparently brilliant moves you better avoid, except there are no alternatives left". In fact, brilliances are risky because they are so appealing that you are prone to overlooking something- so better play dull whenever possible. But this cautious philosophy I follow only when there is plenty of time and no pressure about the result. My first impulse will be to play the obvious Nc7+ without calculating anything. Your belief that chessplayers normally won't think first about such a "blunder" is wrong. Well, it may be statistically correct, but then don't forget that most people play extremely bad chess. For this reason, when I think about how human beings "normally" play, I don't think about the average player. I think about the reasonably strong player, and for them a move like 16.Nc7+ catches the eye. Telmo ;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
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.