Author: Mig Greengard
Date: 16:25:15 12/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
Replies to what? I haven't seen anything desirous of reply. I waste enough time on my own blog and message boards, I'm afraid. Long forced mates aren't exactly practical for humans, but the extreme differences between strong engines are interesting. An Antonio Senatore sent me an engine called Cerebro that isn't that strong in play but finds this mate in six seconds on my computer. There are a few GM computer chess geeks out there, but most are only interested in practical things which rarely appear on this board. Reducing chess to tactics and material the way computers must has had phenomenal results, of course. But a suite of positions with material imbalances reveals many problems. Two bishops versus rook; rook + minor piece versus queen, two pawns for a minor piece, etc. Long-term pawn structure considerations are essential in such positions and the "never/ever" computer problem is highlighted. That is, will one side ever be able to attack pawn x twice? Of the seriously wrong evaluations I've collected most have to do with pawn majorities with decisive endgame implications. Humans may lose such positions to computers anyway of course, but analysis and instruction are very different. Beating humans so easily because of the tactical superiority has masked the evaluation deficiencies that are obvious when you use them to analyze human games. On December 01, 2005 at 12:28:45, Paul Jacobean Sacral wrote: >Let's communicate a bit ok? I hope you're not just dropping a single posting >into CCC to see what the funny nerds may have to say. Pls tell us what you think >about all the reactions which have been posted, if you agree, disagree, what >your GM friends think etc.etc. > >Thanks! :-) > >Yours truly Paul J. Sacral
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.