Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 23:17:46 07/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2000 at 01:18:42, blass uri wrote: >On July 13, 2000 at 00:56:02, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On July 13, 2000 at 00:41:58, Victor Valenzia wrote: >> >>>On July 13, 2000 at 00:18:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>We could ask the same question of any opponent. Suppose that Karpov does not >>>>know he's playing Anand -- only some other player behind a black curtain. Will >>>>he choose the same moves? I doubt it. I am sure that the best players prepare >>>>well for each and every opponent they face. They would be silly not to. >>>> >>>>Everyone has favorite openings, greatest strengths, and greatest weaknesses. >>> >>>You make a good point, but my question remains: Do you think that the computer's >>>performance would be significantly better, slightly better, or about the same in >>>this scenerio? >> >> >>The computer would do better. >> >>When you play a computer you are facing an opponent that is a 2800-2900 >>tactician, but maybe only a 1900-2100 positional player. > >I think that computers are better in positional play and not so good in tactics. >Computers often play endgames well(Junior against adams) and fail against mate >attacks(kramnik) Junior made some positional errors that allowed Kramnik launch that attack from a favorable position. Kramnik was able to place his pieces favorably and launch the attack under only when he was ready. It's true that he had to calculate some tactics at the end, but the attack was initiated through positional play. > >kramnik proved that computers are sometimes weak also in tactics because they do >not know to search the right lines. >For example kramnik won Fritz in 25 minutes/game by tactics because Fritz did >not know to search the line Re8-e6-g6-g5-h5 on time. >You can call it strategy because it is a plan of mate attack but I guess that >kramnik calls it tactics. It's at least partially strategic, because in that type of position, a human barely needs to calculate. The general theme of the rook lift largely replaces calculation of variations. > >Some people see positinal play as getting a small advantage and increasing it. > To me, positional play is simply long term planning. You could argue that positional play is actually *very* deep tactical play, but I think that's confusing because it implies deep calculation, when in fact it's pattern recognition that is taking place. --Peter
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.