Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 15:23:34 03/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2005 at 18:07:31, George Tsavdaris wrote: >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...... Many programs find Nf5 quickly, then drop it and then when the see material gain switch back to Nf5. I think S9 did this but played the move quiclkly..it may have found material gain in 2 sec. or it moved too fast...it may be related to code that looks at material compensation, or it may not be. You would need to discuss this SMK. To me, I see material gain, I see a common tactic employed. I have used this theme for 20 years. Terry
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.