Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 06:31:55 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 23:56:16, blass uri wrote: >On October 05, 1999 at 12:29:11, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>On October 05, 1999 at 11:15:35, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 1999 at 10:23:46, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >>>>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. > >Yes, but his evaluation of the sacrifice was better relative to other moves. >He evaluated that the active position was more than a pawn. > >He did not prefer -1 evaluation as better than +1 evaluation and this is what >lanny defines as real sacrifice. > >Uri No, I needed to rule out a computers raw caculating ability for it to be a true chess sac. Kasparov did not use only raw calculating skills to come to his conclusions when he sacced, were calculating fell short he made up for it with instinct, a gut feeling, he came across the conclusion in a different way than a program would've so it was a sac to Kasparov but to a program it was true calculation.
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.