Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 14:26:58 11/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On November 29, 1999 at 15:11:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>r3q1k1/ppp1rpp1/2n1b2p/8/2P2B2/3B4/PPPQ1RPP/5RK1 w - - >>> >This looks _incredibly_ dangerous. For every position where Bxh6 works, >there are 10 positions where Bxh6 loses. Here a piece for two pawns looks >awful if the other pieces can't get over to help out... Speculative play is >nice, as in the old days of the Novag gadgets from Kittinger, and in the current >play of CSTal... but it can backfire big-time as well... > >Crafty doesn't like the sac, unless it sees actual material coming back, because >I have spent a lot of time teaching it which types of material imbalance are >bad and which types are good. A piece for 2 pawns is always bad unless there >is some tactical conclusion at the end. And given the above PV there obviously >isn't anything except a somewhat naked king position for black... I agree with you that such moves can backfire, but I'm still confused. As far I know your intention is to make a strong program against humans. (Beating other computers has a much lower priority) But aren't moves like Bxh6 extremely good against humans? If there's really a way to defend for Black, it's more likely that a computer will find it, whereas a human (even if it's a GM) has so many ways to make one wrong move and most prolly will choose one of them. I kind of reminds me of the game DB-Kasparov where DB made the known knight sacrifice on e6. (not 100% sure now) For a human it's more or less hopeless to continue there, the only chance is that the opponent is also a tactical monster which is able to find the one and only way out. Just curious. Kind regards, -sargon
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.