Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:20:26 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 08:06:17, Marc van Hal wrote: >On July 04, 2002 at 12:35:49, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 04, 2002 at 12:08:37, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On July 04, 2002 at 11:34:13, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On July 04, 2002 at 10:40:31, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>> >>>>>they lack creating a plan. and choosing the right opening for the right >>>>>opponent. >>>> >>>>One could also say that they investigate all possible plans. >>>> >>>>Some of the great moves in history, eg. where Fischer seemingly sacrifices a >>>>rook for no reason at all in an "equal position", doesn't take computers more >>>>than a few seconds to find. >>> >>>I don't think they'ii easily find that rook (exchange) sacrifice Petrosian made >>>against (i think) Reshevsky. > > > >>I'm not saying they can find all great moves ever played, only that they have >>less of a problem with the unintuitive moves. Many of those exclamation mark >>moves made by grandmasters are simply piece of cake for the progs. >> >>-S. > > > >What about Kasparov bischop sacrefice in his game against chiburnatse in a >Gligoric Kings Indian >or his rook sacrefice for nothing but position against Karpov. in a Ruy Lopez >>This kind of moves will not be played by programs. You should post the position so we know what we are talking about if you want to give an example:) I picked up my book of Fischer's 60 memorable games, went to the first game (Fischer-Sherwin 1957). [D]1rb2rk1/p4ppp/1p1qpnn1/6N1/2pP3P/2P3P1/PPQ2PB1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1 Best move 18. Nxh7! Crafty sees Nxh7 after 5 seconds - no problem! Same game, later: [D]2b2r2/pr3pkn/1p2p3/8/2pP1B1q/2P5/PPQ2PB1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 4 Best move 24.Re4! Crafty agrees after 13 seconds. many of these moves are within the search depth of programs, I guess it is mostly because of their "strange look" that they were given a "!". >But something which is a bigger weaknes is finding simply positional moves to >keeping a grip on the position. > >And in the mean time defendig it self from counter attacks. >resulting to more clear positions. Who has the advantage if the position is clear? I would say a "clear" game is more likely to end in a draw, if the position is complicated the stronger player has greater chances of outsmarting his opponent, IMO anyway. >Attacking is fine but defending is just as important. That is a style you are talking about, I'd say the object of the game is to checkmate you opponent so attacking is more important (and more fun:). -S. >Maybe it would be nice to make some epd's of defending moves. > >Only when you find a better balance of Defending and Attacking a program could >improve. >Though technicaly this is a dificult task. > >Or how to handle positions after f4,d5 e5 is some openingslines > >So there still is enough space to explore! > >Regards Marc van Hal
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.