Author: James Robertson
Date: 16:33:13 10/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1999 at 19:12:34, Peter Kappler wrote: >On October 20, 1999 at 16:31:42, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>What positionally don't chessprograms understand yet? > > >Lots. > >Give most micros a position devoid of tactics, requiring slow maneuvering and >repositioning of pieces, and they will play at or below 2200 ELO. If it is devoid of tactics, I'll bet closer to 1500 ELO. :) James >The trick for >a human is to get this kind of position, and then accurately convert it, which >almost always requires some type of tactical breakthrough. > >Here's a few things I think all programs have trouble understanding (unless >there is an immediate tactical consequence): > >pawn-sacrifices to gain time in the opening >pawn-sacrifices to open a file or secure a square for attacking purposes >pawn-sacrifices to improve piece activity >outside passers in certain endgames >attacks based on pawn-storms >bad bishops > >I could probably think of others - these are the first that come to mind. > >Different programs handle these problems with varying success, I think. I know >that Bob does a lot of things in Crafty to try to *avoid* closed positions >altogether, and I think he has spent a lot of time on the outside passer >problem. > >Probably the most famous example of how badly a strong program can botch >positional play is game 6 of the first Kasparov - Deep Blue match. > > >--Peter
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.