Author: Albert Silver
Date: 04:46:05 12/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 1999 at 19:34:16, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On December 01, 1999 at 15:27:46, yibing fan wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Just curious. We saw human player make unsound sac all the time, at least in
>>club level. That often leads to a more exciting and interesting game or more
>>humanly game. We, human, saw the opportunity, but don't know the outcome within
>>our calculating power, we gamble! Sometime we win sometime lose.
>>
>>Chess softwares, which been lowed their strenth to club level, seem not doing
>>so. They reduce their playing strenth by hanging pieces or reduce searching
>>time. This make playing against them rather dull.
>>
>>May be this is a desired feature of some top comercial software.
>>
>>Yibing Fan
>
>Chess System Tal makes great ones.
>
>It's something of a challenge to make them play credible ones, but it's fairly
>easy to make them play stupid ones.
>
>For instance, if you start adding opposite castling king terms, you'll start
>sacrificing your h-pawn even when it makes no sense, for instance when there are
>no rooks on the board.
>
>I still think that CST's are the most creative. Some of the games Thorsten has
>posted have featured sacrifices that are creative even by human standards, in my
>opinion. Most computer sacrifices seem very wooden compared to these.
>
>bruce
I agree. I once saw what COULD be considered a standard sac on h3 from Black's
point of view, except that I couldn't see how CST was going to follow up as its
pieces didn't seem properly poised to do so. 10-15 moves later, it came through.
Very impressive. Anyone know if Chris Whittington is still working on it? Or has
he moved on to greener pastures?
Albert Silver
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.