Author: Thomas Lagershausen
Date: 08:44:53 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 10:29:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 07, 2004 at 10:21:27, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: > >>On August 07, 2004 at 09:47:23, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2004 at 08:51:51, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >>> >>>>[D]3r2rk/3n1pp1/2p1b2p/3q3P/pp1PNQ2/2P2P2/PP6/KB4RR w - - 0 29 >>>> >>>>In this speedchessgame in round two of the fide-wcc 2004 the IM Neelotpal >>>>(2457)found with 29.Rg1-g6 !! with the thread to sacrifice the rook on h6 the >>>>strongest move to show that white is not(!) worse in this position. >>>> >>>>I bet that every computer of the world wouldn´t have found this in a compareable >>>>time. >>>> >>>>So this is a lesson in tactics where computers can learn form human players. >>>> >>>>Do you agree? >>>> >>>>TL >>> >>> >>>No >>> >>>I suspect that the human gambled about 29.Rg6 without checking all the >>>possibilities with the idea that if he cannot find a defence for black by some >>>selective lines that he analyzed then the opponent will probably also not find >>>it even if the sacrifice is not correct. >> >>It is easy to say i suspect that someone can´t calculate this variation because >>nobody can look in a human brain. I don´t like this style of thinking because it >>has something like i can´t do it so everybody can´t do it. And that is nonsense. >>A player with a ELO of 2457 can calculate things much better than a >>nonprofessional player. That´s the way it is, and every strong player will agree >>with this. > >I did not claim that it is wrong that 2457 player can calculate things better >than me but it does not mean that I cannot have an opinion that something is >impossible to calculate for humans because the number of lines to prove it with >a computer is too high. > >It does not mean that the decision of the human to sacrifice was wrong decision. > >Chess is a practical game and decision to sacrifice for the reason: >"if I can not see defence for the opponent then there is a good chance can be >correct practical decision and tal is known to play sacrifices based on this >reason and the fact that part of them were in theory wrong does not change the >fact that it was good practical decision to play them. > >Uri Chess is also a scientific game and a lot of strong players didn´t make sacrifieces with the motivation of Michael Tal.They calculate the lines till a position which they know by expierence as a winning position. Thomas
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.