Author: James Robertson
Date: 18:06:51 02/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 1999 at 18:06:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >If we define a sacrifice as a loss of material for positional advantage without >being able to see a tactical bonus, then it was a sacrifice *for him*. > >If we can see deeply enough, then all sacrifices become tactical manuvers, >unless they are unsound sacrifices. At which time, they become blunders. >;-) > >Crafty might make what it thinks is a positional sacrifice, but Deep Blue, at >the same time control says "Combination" because it see 'x' plies further to the >actual solution. > >It seems (from previous discussion) that a sacrifice is only a sacrifice has >"hoped for" benefits rather than directly calculated material benefits. We may >further differentiate and say that 'accidental' sacrifices do not count unless >your program made the move for positional reasons. This makes sense, but it is funny that my program is "stupid" enough to make sacrifices. :) James
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.