Live chess broadcast powered by ChessBomb and Chessdom
Provided by ChessBomb technology, courtesy of our friends at Chessdom
Get up to date chess news and information on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SusanPolgar
Get up to date chess news and information on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/polgarchess
Get up to date chess news and information daily: http://www.ChessDailyNews.com
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I am surprised Kamsky missed the shot 23…Ng5!! since it seems that playing for this kind of cheapo was the idea of 22…Qc8 to begin with.
This does furnish an instance supporting my modeling assumption that move choices are independent, even for consecutive moves. This assumption ignores the chess-specific fact that players play with plans. The question (which will be hard to determine) is, do we change out mind about plans often enough that we make the same distribution of moves as if we were playing without a plan?
I.e., can human beings really convince a statistician that our style is separate from a “mindless chess engine” which doesn’t play with a plan?
Can anyone tell me why the game Onischuk vs. Rodshtein is a draw?
Surely the game is a win for white?
KWRegan,
Interesting post…
i. No, we have plans, and move choices are not independent.
ii. Convincing a statistician of that is a different issue.
iii. I wouldn’t think the degree of dependence would matter in most modeling situations.
iv. Where it would make a difference is in programming a chess engine to play more human-like.