Author: Graham Laight
Date: 06:51:41 01/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 09:33:04, S. Loinjak wrote: >I'm not sure how the complete game theoretical tree of chess looks like but I've >got the folowing ideas about it. > >From correspondence chess I know that high search depths (e.g 24 ply in middle >game with still 20 men on the board) enable you to start optically very very >risky looking attacks where the initiative gain can compensate a considerable >amount of material over a long time. This doesn't prove that these attacks can't be refuted, or that the positions where they can be made can't be avoided. >Therefor I 'feel' that optimal chess might be by far different from 'normal' >human chess. Maybe it'll be full of extreme attacks like Nezhmetdinov used to >play (the one who outcombined M. Tal in his [Tals!] best days - even Tal was >proud of those losses). Of course the main variation could look very Has anyone checked these games for errors with a computer? I suspect that Deep Fritz would have beaten these players if they'd tried these kinds of attacks. -g >conventional and lifeless as maybe both colors are forced to act extremely >prophylactically to avoid a 'perfect' attact. > >Therefor I could imagine (but I'm not sure about it) that there are lines in the >perfect chess tree (containing the main variation(s) and at least one refutation >[not necessarily the strongest one] for each suboptimal move) which are highly >material imbalanced over a long time until mate or draw is forced. > > >Sini
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.