Author: Daniel Jackson
Date: 22:33:46 07/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2004 at 16:33:44, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On July 18, 2004 at 00:18:36, Daniel Jackson wrote: > >>Why post this nonsense? > >Because it is computationally interesting. Read above....I realized you were not pulling a prank...it's a genuine test position, albiet unusual, tests for mate. More interesting in practical play was CM's positional/tactical sac Rxf4! which you considered not worth serious analysis. I think it does, it's something a very strong player would consider to break down White's defences, it doesn't lose material if you consider the positional advantages. But it's not winning outright either, but such sacs rarely are...they are meant to gain a foothold and I consider them "true" sacrifices. This is what we want programs to do, make good judgements based on position. I remember when it was believed you couldn't program a machine to sacrifice, unless it was pure tactics..it was considered too hard as these concepts were difficult for humans let alone machines. Times have changed! Daniel
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.