Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 17:48:52 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 09:06:57, stuart taylor wrote: >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. >>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. >>Attacking is fine but defending is just as important. >> >>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 > >Very good. And christophe Theron was almost denying any valid claim to the >existence of such knowledge. >So are there any programs which have a little bit of all this? And if not, will >they ever?and when? >S.Taylor Christophe is dening on points where every tactical and even postional players in history will disagree with. Which makes his standing point very small. An other point of defending and attacking is not a certain style It has been used by many players only not always in the most optimal way. But it is always at least is tried. And if the program finds positions after which no defense is posible it also will find beter tactical moves Checkmating your oponent is not so simple if your oponent started with a good counter attack. Or let face it how many games where realy decided because of important tactical moves in computer computer chess games? It is more common that games are lost on positional bases and only then tactics became of importance. Though the upset of the game might be played on tactical bases. Also tactical players always look for eventualy resulting end games. Otherwise I can start arguments like Donner did what is the valeu of the queen if two White knights a White king a Black king and a Black queen are on the board the position is equal. if two White knights a White king and a Black king are on the board the position is equal. So the valeu of the queen is zero. 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.