Author: James Robertson
Date: 10:24:06 12/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1998 at 23:50:48, Laurence Chen wrote: >I am getting tired of hearing people making statements that their chess engine >is the most dynamic and it plays sacrifices for the initiative. I have not heard one programmer EVER say their program was the most dynamicand that it plays sacrifices for the initiative. >Really?! I say >that is not always true, I believe that most of the sac which the chess engine >performs are pseudo sacrifices and very very very few indeed are true or real >sacrifices. I would suspect that Chess System Tal would be an exception because >I've seen games which CST makes lots of sacrifices,it knows no fear. I have the >following position for all of you CM 6000 supporters which claim that CM always >create winning situations No one has ever claimed that CM6000 always creates winning situations. >and is always ready to perform a sacrifice for the >initiative. I've seen the type of sacrifices which CM performs, most of them >are pseudo-sacrifices, How do you define pseudo-sacrifices?? A sacrifice that results in a forced win? If the sacrifice is correct, then it is a forced win, or a forced swindle. >I've yet to see one which is a true sacrifice. So here's my >challenge to all of you CM supporters which claim that CM always make >sacrifices for the initiative, I have yet to see a message in which the author claimed that CM6k always sacrifices for the initiative. I recall one in which the author said something along the lines of "CM6k always is saccing something or pressing very hard for the initiative". Throughout your entire post, you put words in the mouths of us CM6k fans. Please don't. >I would like you to get a copy of the book, >Modern Chess Sacrifice, by Leonid >Shamkovich, and test all the positions in >the book and tell [snip] James
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.