Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 15:07:31 03/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2005 at 17:53:54, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 25, 2005 at 17:50:23, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 25, 2005 at 17:44:02, Steve Maughan wrote: >> >>>Terry, >>> >>>>Shredder saw this move earlier, and played quickly. It's not a positinal >>>>sacrifice. >>> >>>Paste the EPD into Shredder 9 and it will find Nf5 after only a couple of >>>seconds i.e. it sees this move quickly without using previous search knowledge. >>> >>>How do you define a "Tactical Sacrifice" and a "Positional Sacrifice"? >>> >>>Steve >> >>A tactical sacrifice leads to a gain in material and Nf5 does....a positional >>sacrifice gives compensation for material, space and mobility, which will >>eventually lead to material returned, etc. >> >>Terry > >If S9 does this in 2 seconds with out seeing a return in material, then it may >be a considered a blunder. The difference is this "blunder" wins!:) No! Perhaps SMK programmed it to play not only moves that lead to material advantage, but that lead to positional advantage too. How do you know it is not designed like this........? It seems odd that a computer plays without seing a material advantage, but perhaps this is an example that they do......
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.