Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: why don't chess engines simplify enough

Author: Francesco Di Tolla

Date: 04:05:04 01/26/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 25, 2006 at 01:34:54, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:

>We learn early on that if we have a winning advantage, we want to eliminate any
>chance of counterplay by our openent. We usually would like to simplify the
>position.

Beacuse to simplify in genearl is simply wrong: one needs to reduce the number
of pieces if he knows that what he has in terms of advantage is winning, if not,
you better keep more material on the board.

Actually usually if you have a cramped position it is better for the weak part
to simplify, to get some "air" (in italian we say "liquidate to a simpler
position").

Of course if you have a queen up it's easy to say that simplyfy should mean a
quick win, but if you have a piece or an exchnge it is far from obvious you will
win.

Then one should also know what to trade: if you have R+B+N+n*pawns vs
R+B+B+(n-1)*pawns and you can chose which (color of) B to trade for you N you
would have to know that with R+B sometimes opposite color bishops favours the
side with extra pawn cause you can "attack more", while in the same situation
with no Rs you would want to keep on the board Bs of the same color.

You need to code a lot of chess knoweledeg, or you end up drawing some won
games.

On the other side I have the impression the computer programs often have a
limited capability in using exchanse to "liquidate" to a position simpler to
hold.



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.