Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: My incredibly simplistic view

Author: Fernando Villegas

Date: 08:02:46 08/04/99

Go up one level in this thread


I am not a programmer, but a seasoned player and maybe I can hint to other way
to see this problem of the “easy moves” on the ground of what a human player
thinks and do when faced with an obvious move to do. And what an experienced
player do is to discriminate between two different classes of “obvious moves”:
normal ones and those to answer  maybe-winning-sacrifices moves by the rival.
A normal one is just to recapture a piece that has made a normal capture before.
If my opponent take my bishop with a knight, so not giving nothing for free, I
just analyze a few ply in order to discover if that capture is or not part of a
mate combination, specially if that happens near my king. Mates combinations
beginning with a  normal capture -by example, to kill a defensive piece before
launching the mate attack- normally are inside an horizon of no more -normally-
than 6 ply. So in these kind of cases -recapture after a “normal” capture- that
should be enough in a couple of seconds of search for the program.
But then we have the second class of obvious moves, those that follow an
strange, no normal move. If my opponent play Bxh3+ , so losing at once material,
I tend to thinks that is part of a masive attack and so i will not recapture at
once, but take a deep look, in fact deeper than against any other normal move. A
program should do the same each time an aparent sacrifice is being performed. An
ad-hon culd be to consier the quealuty of he previous moves. I suppose that an
opponent that have played several best moves according he program is not a
beginner and so every unbalanced mve that he do shuld be consdered with the
utmost care. And vice versa.
So, easy moves should be treated depending of what class of capture is being
perfomed by the opponent. Is a balanced one in terms of material? Happens near
the king or the queen? Is not balaced but on the contrary lose material?
I Hope not to bother nobody with maybe an obvious analysis...:-)
Fernando



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.