Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:06:40 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 13:38:44, George Sobala wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 09:41:18, James T. Walker wrote: > >>Computers will never "understand" speculative sacrifices. Just because Fritz >>thinks the move is bad is not proof. This sac might have worked against many >>humans who could not find the proper response. That's the nature of speculative >>moves in chess. The computer didn't get rattled where humans might have. If >>Kramnik could have computed the line to a forced win then it's not speculative >>and maybe not even a sac. > >I agree. Although computers are often touted as "tactical monsters" they have >some quite marked weaknesses in certain types of tactical positions and cannot >be relied on to prove anything! Not clear to me. Of course, I am not a professional chess programmer, so maybe I wouldn't know. But . . . What is there to keep a chess programmer from writing code that forces the chess engine to examine all such sacrifices? Yes, I know there would be a few technical difficulties. But, what about the essence of this idea? Is it so far out from what is do-able? Bob D.
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.