Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
mclane wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:50 am
A computer software cannot play a gambit.
It has no clue about the sense of a gambit.
It will defend material although the idea is to sac material.
It is not playing chess. It emulates playing chess.
chess programs also sacrifice material for positional compensation.
Every strong program does it and programs sometimes make wrong sacrifices
how many chess engines (book turned off) you know play d4 d5 c4 ??
of course chess engines do to a certain degree sac for compensation.
but in a gambit, the idea is different. the compensation e.g. in the BDG is much deeper then the chess engines could smell.
its not about compensation for a material win. its about a compensation to mate the opponent.
the BDG is a good example. Kings gambit and queens gambit or englund gambit and budapest gambit
or any other gambit also show that the chess engines fail to emulate chess understanding.
and this behaviour has IMO not changed over long term of computer chess development.
the programs compute deeper and they kill humans. but they do not play better in gambits. its because they have no clue that the target is mating . instead they play for material wins.
lets hope the latest developments in computerchess help to solve this emulation lack.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 Nxe4 is nice if you can get it, but beware - white can play 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 and you've been tricked into the dxe4 variation.
todd wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:37 pm
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 Nxe4 is nice if you can get it, but beware - white can play 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 and you've been tricked into the dxe4 variation.
Black doesn't have to play along. Instead of 3...dxe4 he can meet 3.e4 with 3...e5 when 4.dxe5 runs into 4...Nxe4.
mclane wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:09 pm
how many chess engines (book turned off) you know play d4 d5 c4 ??
of course chess engines do to a certain degree sac for compensation.
but in a gambit, the idea is different. the compensation e.g. in the BDG is much deeper then the chess engines could smell.
its not about compensation for a material win. its about a compensation to mate the opponent.
the BDG is a good example. Kings gambit and queens gambit or englund gambit and budapest gambit
or any other gambit also show that the chess engines fail to emulate chess understanding.
and this behaviour has IMO not changed over long term of computer chess development.
the programs compute deeper and they kill humans. but they do not play better in gambits. its because they have no clue that the target is mating . instead they play for material wins.
lets hope the latest developments in computerchess help to solve this emulation lack.
My 64 core machine will play that using Stockfish at 40 moves in two hours.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.