Author: George Sobala
Date: 13:04:12 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 15:06:40, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. Brute force searching of all possible moves will always get the answer ..... eventually. But the size of the potential search tree is what prevents computers searching ALL possible moves. They take shortcuts. Now of course for the current position they will look at all the moves, but if the success of the first sac depends on an obscure move or unusual second sac a few moves later - they don't see it as winning, or at least not for a LONG time.
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.