Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:14:47 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 08:09:30, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 17:32:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>> >>I doubt Fritz saw more. It was just lucky that the sacrifice didn't work. > >I was convinced that in this game the "lucky factor" don't exist... > >w.b.r. >Otello I don't know what you mean, exactly. My point was this: If Nxf7 works, deep fritz had absolutely no idea that it did, because it couldn't see the consequences of the move. if Nxf7 doesn't work, the same statement is still true. So the issue becomes one of luck. Kramnik played the move. Fritz had no idea whether it was good or not. Luckily for Fritz, it turned out to be bad. A different position. Fritz (or any program) could have been playing against Shirov a few years ago where he made his famous bishop sacrifice in an endgame. The programs all think the sacrifice is unsound. They are all wrong. So in that case, since they blundered into a position where a sound sacrifice worked, but they had no idea about the sac, they were unlucky. In the Kramnik game, Fritz blundered into a position where the sacrifice was played and it was lucky that it was unsound. that was the idea... Luck is _always_ a part of the game...
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.