Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 13:33:00 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 15:16:50, blass uri wrote: >the programs were unable to handle the topic because they do not know >what lines to search. >knowing what lines to search is tactic. ???? I think this is nonsense. If not knowing which line to search is tactics, than - per definition - anything is tactics. Thats silly. If your definition cannot differenciate between tactics and positional, than your definition sucks. >I do not agree we measure how fast their searches are And why not ? You will see that programs like fritz and ferret will always make a good job in those suites. >there are test positions when fritz5 is faster than Junior4.6 >not because it is a faster searcher(more than 30 times faster) >and there are test positions when the opposite happens >because in 1 positon fritz5 understand better what lines to search >and in the other position the opposite happens. > >Uri And who is the better tactician, when not finding "the right lines" is tactis, or here - NO tactics ? Your definition of TACTICS is as stupid as the definition of GOD or RANDOM. It says nothing. Saying: Anything is GOD is the same as saying anything is random or anything is tactics. Same level of argumentation. I don't think you will be able to increase the strength of a chess program by calling anything tactics/god/random.
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.