Anybody else like the idea of getting their opponent in an unclear/potentially zugzwangy position?
Playing toward a critical moment: A good strategy for chess?
Sort:
It's interesting to see how houdini was willing to sacrifice two pawns, only for what seems to be actively placed pieces. Although like any computer it can be victim to the horizon effect, it doesn't seem to be a very materialistic engine.
I wasn't trying to make a Houdini commentary thread. I was more interested in the validity of playing for a sharp, critical moment like the above position that I posted seems to be. Where would you have moved that knight that was on e4? Notice that it's not the computer playing Black that has to answer that question, so the computer playing White was the one that got a chance to screw up.
Where would the knight go after 1.Ng3 or 1.Nd2?
hey, Yereslov my apologizes for calling you out, im sorry man
superking500 wrote:
hey, Yereslov my apologizes for calling you out, im sorry man
It doesn't really matter in the long run.
Yereslov wrote:
Where would the knight go after 1.Ng3 or 1.Nd2?
Ng5 may be the best.
VirtualMichael wrote:
Single positions are within our capacity to visualize. It seems we all want to strategize toward a critical moment in which it would be hard for the opponent to deliberate on a move that would make the difference between his/her advantage and falling into the pit of disadvantage.
At last I have heard the sound of one hand clapping.
AndyClifton wrote:
VirtualMichael wrote:
Single positions are within our capacity to visualize. It seems we all want to strategize toward a critical moment in which it would be hard for the opponent to deliberate on a move that would make the difference between his/her advantage and falling into the pit of disadvantage.
At last I have heard the sound of one hand clapping.
Yes, use chess moves in a way to pose zen questions to your opponent in chess position form.
Such as, "What was the position before the game started?"
Nah, attack accurately placed pieces and force them into less accurate places.
Precisely.
Estragon wrote:
Why do I not see Andy's avatar?
Do I need to raise my conciousness another level?
Nah, just put your glasses on.
Computers have tremendous potential to evaluate positions and look forward to them. Some say the wisest chess engine is Houdini. For instance, this game (that could be Houdini's Immortal) inspires me to think that maybe what we should do is think toward "critical moments" and value them somewhat more than mere materiality.
Shredder says Nf2, which Rybka played, made a difference between keeping its advantage and falling into the pit of disadvantage, which Houdini then exploited and won with its new-found advantage. Houdini sacrificed pawns like crazy (relative material apathy for a computer). But it's as if Houdini could have seen a critical moment that was sharp and deciding to go for it.
Indeed, Houdini plays weird before f5 attacking the knight on e4. But maybe Houdini is so positionally well versed that it sees how the unclear position could have an advantage to it.
So have we been too materialistic and should think it's more correct to play in a way where we force our opponent to make moves--moves that play into our plot of "zugzwang forcing" via aggressive tactics that create new questions in a position that an opponent can easily answer wrong?