Author: blass uri
Date: 01:10:46 08/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 17:31:45, Bo Persson wrote: >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! If you are mated a few moves later in 1 game out of 1000 and save time in 999 games out of 1000 then you usually use the time you save by a quick response and earns more than you lose. In cases that the "obvious" move is wrong you often can suspect that it is wrong because you discover a big drop in the evaluation of the move so you should play faster obvious moves only if there is no big drop in the evaluation. 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.