Author: blass uri
Date: 08:15:35 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 10:23:46, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >On October 03, 1999 at 23:44:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 03, 1999 at 23:17:29, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>[snip] >>>> >>>>my webster's defines 'sacrifice' as 'voluntarily giving up something of >>>>value'. I have a hard time saying 'I will sacrifice a ten-dollar bill if >>>>you will give me a 20 dollar bill in return...' >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>Ok, you got me. I neglected to explicitly state I was refering to the _chess_ >>>version of the term. >>> >> >> >>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? >> >>How is that different from QxP+, RxQ, RxR#?? >> >>Dumping a queen for a pawn? Or winning the king? >> >> >>>> >>>>But I don't object to the term being used.. I just think that for a computer, >>>>the concept 'sacrifice' is wrong. It is just a perfectly computable >>>>combinational tree search... >>> >>>You can give up a bishop to obtain a draw by perpetual check and because you >>>never get the material back, it is a called a sacrifice. I know it seems trivial >>>and is not what people generally have in mind when they use the term >>>"sacrifice", but I do believe it's use in such cases is fairly universal. >> >> >>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. > >Yes,even then, did chaos choose the move against a better move as related to its > score,if it saw a move that left its score at +1.00 or the move it made at > -1.00 did it go for the -1.00? I think a real sac in a computer is if it >chosses a move against its score, or else it is still going on raw calculation. A serious human does not do sacrifices by your definition. Sacrifice is the same as something that you believe that is clearly wrong by your definition. 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.