Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:37:28 03/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2005 at 22:57:08, Steve Maughan wrote: >Terry, > >>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. > >I'd say that S9 played the move without seeing the tactical compensation for >material and only seeing a big space, mobility and king exposure advantage for >white. Therefore I'd say it's a positional sacrifice - S9 did not see the >tactical win when selecting Nf5 after 5 secs. > >Have you any examples of positions where computers have made positional >sacrifices by your definition? > >Regards, > >Steve I could look them up. IMO this isn't positional, however S9 may have made the choice based on both positional factors as well as tactical ones, but tactics predominate. When I viewed this position, I _instantanly_ saw the combination down the g-file and I would have played Nf5 without analizing every continuation, as it was obvious the material can't be held and stopping mate on the g-file would be expensive. I've explained myself well, why you continue to argue with this is you can't see the position as well as I or S9.
This page took 0.01 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.