Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 22:18:44 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1999 at 18:28:26, Will Singleton wrote:
>On March 18, 1999 at 17:17:46, James B. Shearer wrote:
>
>>On March 17, 1999 at 10:04:37, odell hall wrote in part:
>>
>>> ... In my opinion many humans consider chess programs to be boring because
>>>they cannot get the same tactical opportunities against programs as against
>>>humans. Computer are notorious for stamping out any tactical possibilities
>>>before they materialize. ...
>>
>> I think this is more or less the reverse of the truth. Computers are
>>notorious for ignoring tactical possibilities which have not yet materialized
>>(are beyond their search horizon). So a computer up two pawns with an easy win
>>will go grab a third pawn on the queenside and get mated on the kingside because
>>the mate was beyond its search horizon. A human does not have to actually see
>>the mate to decide that descretion is indicated.
>> James B. Shearer
>
>James,
>
>Depends on the program, cpu, time control. While you have beaten my prog that
>way, wouldn't be the same story vs the quad crafty. Most times.
I sometimes beat crafty clones that way also. The quad crafty may
see deeper but it still won't guard against threats beyond its horizon. Of
course I lose most of the time anyway but not because it is impossible to get
tactical chances.
James B. Shearer
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.