Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:14:50 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 07:37:34, Marc van Hal wrote: >On October 23, 2002 at 20:33:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 23, 2002 at 15:30:58, Marc van Hal wrote: >> >>>On October 23, 2002 at 11:14:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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... >>> >>>Steinitz and Dr Lasker strongly would disagree with you >>>(Acording to them nothing was as bad as a bad sacrefice.) >>>Though Tal and Shirov would agree a litle. >>>You also have the bad knight sacrefice from Fischer against Donner. >>>Then you have to be carefull because when Donner asked why he made this >>>sacrefice. >>>Fischer said because I despise you. >>>Maybe this was what Kramnik ment and only didn't say it because he knew Fritz >>>wouldn't understand it ouch. >>>Still I think the horizon problem is a computer problem and not a human problem. >>>Marc >> >> >>There are two kinds of "horizon" problems. >> >>In one, you simply don't see deeply enough, and so you enter into a line that >>gets you killed. >> >>In the other, you play delaying moves untkil you get tired of doing so, and >>then you stop analyzing down that path. This is how the infamous "horizon >>effect" hurts programs still today... >> >>The latter is really not a human issue at all. But the first one is... > >Ok ehm your right >But the first line did not aplie here >(This aplies when you get over played which was not the case here.) >But when the sacrefice was corect and Fritz didn,t find it than it was >mostlikely because of the infamous horizon problem. >Marc Agreed. _many_ real sacrifices, that are perfectly sound, can't be found by programs. They are simply too deep.
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.