Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:30:02 11/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 1999 at 19:00:25, Ed Schröder wrote: >I can not believe you saying this. After 1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Qxh6 there is a queen, >2 rooks and a bishop all pointed very dangerous at a naked king. Rebel giving >+1 is fully justified. > >Every 1800 rated chess player will play 1.Bxh6 immediately, no need to >calculate. He is just being conservative. Every 1800 rated player will play this, and they'll beat every other 1800 rated player, but they'll lose a lot of the time against a strong computer. I'm not trying to say you are wrong in this case. In this case the sac works, no doubt. And I'd bet that in a too-high percentage of cases it either works or I have to watch the silly human opponent miss a +2 move before going astray and losing. Are you saying that you don't try to calculate these, that you'd give that +1 based upon static eval? Do you do this based upon real evidence that it works? I feel better about this if you are doing this statically, what worries me is that everyone might be seeing material coming back in the eval, or seeing in eval or some other way that the other white pieces really can infiltrate. I don't understand how to do the former, although the latter sounds like a challenge worth exploring. bruce
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.