Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:34:55 09/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2001 at 10:11:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 20, 2001 at 09:33:22, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>>As far as a computer program is concerned, anything is tactics. >> >>But this means little in practice. > >Yes and no. A crappy positional program can play great chess if >it just searches deep enough, while a positional genius can get >trounced if it doesn't see deep enough to spot the hard tactics. >Case in point: Goliath vs Diep I doubt if Diep has a better evaluation function that Goliath. searching less nodes per second does not mean better evaluation function. If you have a perfect evaluation function to day if a position is a draw or a win for one of the sides you do not need to search at all. It does not happen but it also does not happen that a crappy positional program can play great chess. If you use only material evaluation you have no chance against the top programs even if you use the best hardware that is available against 386. > >Sometimes the search will take ages to see something which is >'eval' in a positional program. But the connection is certainly >there. > >My program can solve several 'positional' positions from the Louget >II test set with a material-only eval, by just looking deep enough. My guess is that it is not going to solve most of the 3 positions that I posted. I guess that Be2 is the only position that may be an exception but it is going to need a very long time to see it by only material evaluation. Uri
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.