Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:17:36 01/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 1999 at 09:04:50, Oliver Y. wrote: >I have drawn a number of games against human masters, down a piece with little >or no compensation whatsoever. > >Earlier posts about true sacrifices might be related to this topic, and I >apologize in the unlikely event that I am duplicating an old discussion. > >I think current programs are particularly bad at having a chance at swindling to >save completely lost positions. > >If there's any interest, I can post two games where I was down a piece, > >a) I further sacked an exchange, so I'm down a rook; then I exchange my queen >for his 2 rooks and a knight..eventually I wind up with a mate in one using a >rook, bishop, and knight against his queen and bishop...which I miss in time >trouble. > >b) I sack another piece for some pressure, all along I am dead lost, so this >game score would be an embarrassment to the FIDE 2250+ master to post... >He blunders, and I have a won position, which I promptly turn into a perpetual >mate due to time pressure. > >Sorry, I guess I should just post the games already...but there's really no way >in the next 20 years you'll see programs finding effective swindles against >humans... > >That would be a true sign of Artificial Intelligence, IMMHO. Hi Oliver: I do not see an special extraordinary difficulty in that, at least in conceptual terms if not in practical one. Of course your expression "effective swindles" left open a door to rejects anything that is not defined as "effective", but thinking in swindles as such, the attitude to swindle, effective or not, in a practical game, I am not even sure some kind of swindling features were not present even in some very old programs. I remember Chess Champion by the Spracklen -1980- was willing to swindle -although clumsily-in lost positions and the same with his sucesor, Excellence and Par Excellence. I do not know for certain with current programs, but in fact, if that feature does not exist, what should be done -simplifying a lot- is not more than what we do in such circunstances. What we do? a) to detect that the opponent has an edge againts us, enough for a sure defeat in the long run and so understanding that "normal" playing has not sense anymore. b) Trying to transform the current form of disadvantage in another more complex form of disadvantage in order to get chances, even adding more abstract, material disadvantage for the sake of confusion and complexity. c) And as we do and as much as material disadvantage already exist, positional or justs attacking factors could overrun totally -or almost- material factors. In that way the engine could look for enterprising moves even if they are materially unsound in the very first ply of the search. fernando
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.