What Computers Don’t Understand About Chess

Computers have undoubtedly changed the world of chess forever. Chess engines provide a numerical score for any move. In one sense, these scores tell us the best move for any situation. At the same time, these moves are not always the most practical for humans playing against other humans. In chess it is generally good to have more pieces than the other player. There are times, however, when losing a pawn or even sacrificing a piece of greater value can be a sensible decision. You might get a strong attack on your opponent, for example, or a safer king. Giving up a piece for some type of compensation is called a gambit. Some gambits are approved by chess engines, yielding a positive numerical evaluation despite the loss of material. Computers do not consider all gambits to be effective, however. Some gambits do not provide enough compensation to be worth it from the computer’s point of view. The Englund Gambit is viewed unfavorably by computers everywhere. This opening arises after White moves the Queen’s pawn two squares and Black sacrifices the King’s pawn immediately (1. d4 e5). According to engines, the Englund Gambit is not much different than a simple loss of a pawn. However, most people don’t know the nuances of the Englund Gambit, making them likely to fall into some nasty traps. For example, there is one well-known trap in the Englund Gambit that leads to checkmate in less than ten moves. Other lines allow Black to easily win a piece. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oksV18QmCwo" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">There is even a trap that involves sacrificing a knight to win a queen.</a> Beginner and even intermediate players usually don’t know all these variations. They are likely to get a losing position as White very quickly. <a href="https://medium.com/getting-into-chess/when-bad-moves-are-good-483fc013c00c">Website</a>