Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:31:35 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. It is possible that the sac is also perfectly sound, even though Fritz doesn't think so. Computers _often_ misevaluate positions badly enough to make their judgement suspect. There might be a better move that Kramnik missed after the sac. Or it might simply be bad. But using a computer to prove either is not going to be easy. A computer can probably prove that it _is_ sound, but it is much harder to prove a negative...
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.