Author: Claude Le Page
Date: 02:32:09 06/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
I think we should take the problem at the beginning , and wonder WHY a GM loses to another GM , but also WHY an engine loses to another engine In both cases , we must eliminate blunders due to time pressure (it happens too between egines ) So , we are led to see what happens in conditions of correspondence play , or of analysis Then we meet essentially 3 typical cases: 1) the win is the result of a better strategy after what "game plays by itself" in this case , the computer simply checks that no tactical blunder is made ; It's subsidiary , but it can save many points 2) one side loses in a position where it should have won ( or drawn ) because it missed a tactical point , usually a sac , not by a blunder , but because the winning or drawing line was too complicated to analyze : it's found after the game , often by a a simple "amateur" who is not a GM An engine , if it's well chosen , rarely misses it , and its role is quite essential 3) one side loses in a dfficult ending ,impossible to analyze exhaustively OTB Here too the role of the engine is essential , especially in queen endings There is no need for the assisted player to be a GM if only he is a good strategyst I think the points discussed above are a reasonable starting for a discussion
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.