Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:17:19 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 23:44:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >then here is a 3-move sequence. Sacrifice or combination? > >RxB, NxR, RxN. > >RxB obviously dumps a rook for a knight. or if you look to the end of the >combination it wins two pieces for a rook which is a significant advantage. > >Sacrifice or combination? Neither. It's just a transaction. >How is that different from QxP+, RxQ, RxR#?? > >Dumping a queen for a pawn? Or winning the king? Queen sac for mate. (Which implies that it wasn't much of a sac, but that's still how it's referred to as.) >in the case of a computer, it isn't 'sacrificing'. It _sees_ that it can >draw or that it can win. IE it isn't giving up _anything_. A human might >toss a bishop 'thinking' (but not sure) than he can force a perpetual. But >a computer either 'proves' that it can force it, or it won't ever go for the >move in the first place. IE we (as humans) gamble on things all the time. But >would it be the same as saying "I'll flip a coin and if it is heads I win, and >if it is tails you win" if I rig the coin so there is _no doubt_ that it will >end up heads when I want? > >That is the minor point here... computers don't sacrifice in the traditional >way usually. There are exceptions like the famous chaos sacrifice vs chess >4.x where chaos didn't see any materian coming back, but thought the position >justified the Nxe6 sac anyway... I see a number of those in Crafty. More than >I really want to see. But they do come close to the definition of a sacrifice >as nothing "real" is won back, just some intangible positional things that may >well not be enough to win with. I only want to say that "positional things" are just as tangible as material. Dave
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.