Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence Definition: must involve winning lost positions

Author: Graham Laight

Date: 16:01:17 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.

I disagree with Oliver.

Winning a lost position does not require special intelligence - rather it
requires a mistake by the opponent.



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.