Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:58:24 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 08:51:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 08:40:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 30, 2006 at 07:49:53, Michael Diosi wrote: >> >>> >>>Hello. >>> >>>I have a few, this one is from Russel/ Norvig : Advances in Artificial >>>Intelligence A Modern Approach (page 130) >>>[d]8/1p1P4/k1p5/8/8/3PPPPP/r7/7K b - - 0 1 >>> >>>You can see here that black can give a series of checks "pushing" the inevitable >>>queening over the horizon. So programs how don't see it will have a positive >>>score for black. >>> >>> >>>I can look for more if you want. >>> >>>MD >> >>This is a bad example >> >>Amir Ban is correct. >> >>The horizon effect is effect that cause the program to play worse move because >>it does not see deep enough. >> >>This example is not the horizon effect but only not seeing deep enough. >> >>Uri > >Note that not every case that the program play worse move because of not seeing >deep enough means the horizon effect. > >The idea is that the program has some illusion that it can prevent some problem >but only cause itself a bigger problem because it delay the problem to position >that it does not see. > >In the example the program has an illusion that it can prevent the pawn from >promotion but it does not cause it to do mistakes and sacrifice material so I do >not think that it is good example. > >Without check extensions if the program sacrifice the rook then it can be a good >example. > >Uri The following sentence from the article summerize it: "The horizon effect is said to occur when the delaying moves unnecessarily weaken the position or give up additional material to pospone the evantual loss" Uri
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.