Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:04:36 02/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 06:39:49, Tord Romstad wrote: >This human does not find them obvious at all. I guess most newbies in chess would instantly throw the bishop into h6 without thinking too much. This is how CSTal works. the static evaluation says: do it. the search now has the problem to make the best out of the situation. this is a different aproach s8 or other programs try. they really try to find out about the situation. so in fact they do most of the work the opponent should do themselves. > The game is really cool, and >the bishop sac on h6 is very interesting. Nevertheless, I am very surprised >that it worked. i was in the same situation. you sit behind the machine. than it is about TRUSTING. you trust s8 of course - world chess champion, new 18 searches. but suddenly the score goes into 0,00. Shredder had problems with draw-repetition lines. cstal evaluates draw-repetitions different than other chess programs. if cstal can draw, the draw is POSITIVE because WE can force whenever we want. so we have a draw and MAYBE MORE. this is IMO how humans think too. > I haven't analyzed the game in any depth, but intuitively the >sac looks very unsound to me. yes. > After Bxh6 gxh6 Qxh6, white has no attacking >pieces except the queen, but therefore white has to bring pieces to the king. CSTal knows that this is important. it has special algorithms that tell the program WHICH constellations of pieces are dangerous and which constellations are not a problem. when it sees a dangerous constellation, it wants to realize it on board. therefore the normal rook moves. it's like a trajectory for CSTal. I wonder how Smarthink would play in this position. It seems to have similar kind of algos. >and needs several moves to bring pieces to the attack. thats called a plan :-)) >Black's king is temporarily exposed, but from a superficial glance at the >position it looks like black should be able to bring defenders to the >kingside more quikly than white can add more fuel to the fire. this means black UNDERSTAND that it needs to defend. shredder did not. >I am not claiming that the sac is necessarily unsound, but it is very >counter-intuitive to me. It is a move I would be more surprised to see from >a strong human than from a computer (if such a move is played by a program >other than CST, I just assume that it has found some very deep tactical win). right. >Gothmog, my own attempt to emulate the style and feel of CST, does not like >Bxh6. It thinks two pawns and an exposed enemy king is not enough to >compensate for a bishop when there is only one attacking piece. but what about the rook. a queen and a rook ARE dangerous. why is gothmog not capable to see that you get the rook into the attack ? I remember CSTal played a similar game in paris. also with such a rook movement. and it saw it STATICALLY. not by search. but with the evaluations. like humans do it.
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.