Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:36:27 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
> > Why code a definition of combination in a chess program? For the program to >say, as a game comment "Starting a combination" and "End of combination"? Every >player makes combinations ; some are tougher to find/calculate while others are >quite simple (mate in 2 starting with a pseudo-sacrifice, for one). In fact, >there are a lot of things that we do, in chess or just the lafe itself, and >while doing these well, we would not be able to define/describe them >"perfectly". In fact, there is only one chess game. We did create vague concepts >of strategy (positionnal play)/tactics, opening/middlegame/ending, >pseudo-sacrifices/real sacrifices, open/close/semi-open (semi-close) games etc. I think it would be an interesting feature in a chess program, to actually identify each combination, in a format suitable for inclusion in a problem set for instance. A program that does human like annotation could use a feature like this. Can you imagine a program announcing that a certain move loses to the following combination? It would be cool, but would be kind of silly if the combination was simply to push a passed pawn 2 more squares to queen. That is not a combination right? > Exactly WHEN is the opening stage over? When ALL the pieces are out AND the >castling was done for both sides? But there are games in which NO SIDE do >castle! Or maybe it is when all the pieces have moved at least once? Or is it on >a certain move number? 12th move, 15th move? And when a chess program has an >"opening" line that goes from move 1 to move 30, aren't 2/3 of the moves in the >middlegame/ending, instead of the opening? Now you are getting the idea! NONE of these terms are rigoursly defined, and I'm not actually saying they should be, but it is interesting nonetheless. > The same could apply to the 1.e4 leads to an open game/1.d4 leads to a closed >game. There are games in which it is just the opposite! And when we say that the >ending stage is when N or less pieces are on the board for both camps or the >only way to win is with prommoting a pawn to a queen, there are exceptions. >These esceptions are when one camp is still attacking and trying to create a >mating net with the pieces he/she actually has, without thinking of advancing a >pawn to queen and the amount of pieces on board is very small! > > >Serge Desmarais
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.