Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:07:10 12/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 01, 1999 at 10:58:31: [ snip ] >It does it regularly. But here is the issue: giving up a pawn for some >positional compensation may or may not lose if the compensation evaporates, >as in many games, 1 pawn is not enough to force a win. Sacrificing the >exchange is a similar thing... since R vs N or B is a draw. But a piece >for 2-3 pawns almost _always_ loses, at least in the games I have watched on >ICC... I'd say that the sac works maybe 1 of 10 times. This one is different, >in that it does appear to tactically win, which takes it out of the discussion >on 'sacrifices' since it stops being a sac the instant you see the tactical >win of material. Remember the second game of the rematch Kasparov - Deep Blue? Deep Blue sacs 3 pawns in its main-line for a dangerous king attack? A super positional sacrifice. Kasparov is still upset about it as that was the last thing he expected from a computer. >here's a good test... how did you do on Howards Bxh6 test positions? Results posted as a new topic. Nice test. Ed
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.