Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 08:13:26 07/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2004 at 01:33:46, Daniel Jackson wrote: >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 A good explanation and appreciated and I remember those days too... :-)
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.