Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:18:05 11/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 1998 at 10:36:19, blass uri wrote: > >On November 30, 1998 at 09:27:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On November 29, 1998 at 21:39:56, Geo Disher wrote: >> >>>11/25/98 5:40am 19/19 Qb6 eval=1.06 >>>11/25/98 9:30pm 19/49 Qb6 eval=1.00 >>>11/29/98 6:57pm 21/21 Qb6 eval=.88 >>> >>>Best line is 36)Qb6 Qe7 37)axb5 Rab8 38)Qxa6 e4 39)Bxe4 Re8 40)Kf1 Qxe4 >>> >>>It is interesting that the longer Fritz thinks the lower the eval for this pos. >> >>This is pretty interesting. Fritz is sort of noted for its pawn-grubbing, isn't >>it? > >No, Fritz is not materialistic >It did an impressive right sacrifice of a rook for a knight against Genius5 in >mclane's summer tournament because of this reason. >It does sometimes also speculative wrong sacrifices because of this reason. > >Uri > >> >>Dave Gomboc All I would add is that you have to look *very carefully* at these "positional sacrifices". IE I watched a game on ICC where Crafty was playing Rebel 10, and was ahead an exchange in an ending. Out of the clear it played rxn giving the exchange back to wreck rebel's pawns. But in fact, it had seen deep enough that this wasn't "positional" at all, it was tactical, because the king invaded and it did this sac knowing that it wasn't giving up the exchange, rather it was winning the game. I've seen lots of what appeared to be positional sacrifices to the human eye that are really tactical shots instead... Before I try to classify something positional, I try to take the program and make sure it didn't see something tactical...
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.