Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 10:54:55 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 13:07:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 04, 1999 at 11:43:47, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >> >>But what about the example of a drawing sac? Why leave that one out? >>Technically, mate (mate is really misnomer) is a "forced concession of the >>battle", you don't actually kill the king. That's why we have a complicated >>mating rule. It would be simpler to just capture the K, but the inventers wanted >>to keep the game "polite" and leave the really _fun_ part out. Perhaps, because >>the game was actually anticipated to be played by real kings, they decided it >>was "wiser" to leave the last grisly detail out. Killing a king is not really >>fun when a _real_ king can really kill you in return. But this not _my_ reason >>for calling it a sac. It is a sac when I give something up and I don't collect >>the material back, either because of mate or a forced draw or whatever (=your >>version?). Being "prevented" from getting the material back, because an opponent >>resigns or draw is agreed, does not count of course. >> > >I didn't leave the draw option out. It is _identical_ to the mate situation. >A program plays a move, and discovers that it can checkmate you no matter what >you can do. Is that a sac? It is if material was given up to do so. A program is behind (losing to you) and discovers >that if it makes a move it can force a repetition no matter what you can do. Is >that move a sac? It is if material was given up to do so. Or is it suddenly unimportant since it starts a forced >combination that ends the game forcefully, whether winning or drawing? > >That is the ambiguity I don't like in the general use of the word "sac". >"sacrifice" means to give up something. I am not giving up something if I >mate you in the process... I am getting back more than I gave up many times >over. Of course you are getting back. That's the point of the sac. Why sac if you don't get a net gain? Ditto for drawing if I am in a losing position... > What is given up is _material_. What you don't get back is the _material_. What you get back is something else. That's a sac to put it simply. When get nothing or too little back, it is not a sac, it is a blunder. > > >> >>By my way of looking at things, a mating combination may or may not include a >>sac. I prefer to keep the distinction, rather than meld them together as you do. >>People enjoy the sac version of a combo more. Reason enough to keep the >>distinction IMHO. > >Doesn't bother me... if we agree that the definition of a 'sacrifice' is to >give up material at some point, whether you get it back or not... The only >problem with that definition is that in computer games (particularly those >against humans) it happens so often that it becomes a bland happening. I see >such 'sacrifices' (combinations) in most every game against a human played at >blitz time controls... > > >>Definitions are fairly arbitrary. I choose an objective >>definition that can be applied by anyone. You choose one that is subjective. >>Taking the Rebel game as an example. If a 1200 played that "sac" it would be a >>true sac, since he cannot reasonably be expected to calculate all the >>ramifications. If a GM plays the sac, maybe it is a sac or not, depending on the >>player, time situation, etc. A GM could calculate it to the point where he gets >>the material back or play it based on intuition. I don't care for this >>ambiguity. >> > > >Not a problem for me either way. If the word must stay totally ambiguous, >I can live with it... But a sac from a GM and a sac from a program are two >totally different concepts. Because a program will _never_ do it 'just because >it feels right' while a GM will do it regularly for that reason, without being >able to calculate all the repercussions... A program will do it as a gamble. You clipped an important part of my post that addressed this. What gives?
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.