Author: Ron Murawski
Date: 10:34:05 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 03:26:47, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 01:47:38, Ron Murawski wrote: > >[snip] > >>A computer never knowingly plays a true sacrifice. All it can do is make the >>move that will get it the highest score, aka "best move". > >And that is different to how humans play a sacrifice exactly how? Computers are >a bit more number-centric than humans, but that is true for the >non-sacrifice-moves as well as the sacrifice-moves. > The distiction is this: a human can make a move based on gut-instict or based on experience from playing other similar positions, a computer cannot. If a chess player knows his opponent he might play a slighly inferior move knowing that the other player is uncomfortable in certain situations whereas a chess engine will never play a slightly inferior move. In order to get a computer to play a true sacrifice, you have to give a large enough positional bonus to fool the engine into thinking it's gaining something. Most computer programs are very materialistic and it's difficult to "fool them" this way. > >>In order to get an engine to play a knight sacrifice, you must award enough >>attacking bonuses to outweigh the loss of the knight. > >And a human has to see and evaluate the attacking chances too to outweigh the >loss of the knight. Again, how is that different? > > >>My own engine attempts to do this and I find that sometimes it works and >>sometimes it doesn't. > >As it does with humans.. just ask Kramnik. ;) > >Sargon Notice that it was Kramnik who sacked his knight, not Fritz. It seems the top commercial engines won't sac unless they see paydirt in the lookahead. Ron
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.