Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 09:29:11 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 11:15:35, blass uri wrote: >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 Human can make real sacrifice, eg : Kasparov had sacrifice many times one pawn in early middle game to get an active position or everybody how had white against Sicilian-Poisoned-Pawn do a sacrifice with 'vague' compensation.
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.