Author: Bo Persson
Date: 14:31:45 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 01:35:29, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >On August 02, 1999 at 20:21:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > [...] >>This is exactly the sort of approach that killed me in 1981. Because all of >>the other moves look bad when compared to the 'best' move. Because the best >>move wins a piece instantly. None of the other moves appear to do so. And >>they _never_ do so. But if you search this 'best' move long enough you realize >>it loses, and then the other moves are better... > >This is not quite the same. The other moves in your example are only relatively >bad, not absolutely bad. If all the other moves lose anyway, it does not matter >if the one move loses or not, you can just make it and hope for the best. The problem here is that the "obviuos" move wasn't good at all, it was really, really bad! The "best" move seems to win a piece at a quick search, but a full search will show that you get mated! The other moves might loose a piece, but you are still in the game! You never get to use the time saved by a quick response if you are mated a few moves later! Bob tried this once, and will obviously never do it again! :-) Bo Persson bop@malmo.mail.telia.com
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.