Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:59:36 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 16:33:00, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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 > the definitions are easy: tactics: moving pieces around with the ability to win material, or avoid losing material or to mate your king, or anything else you can see that has a finite and forced outcome. positional: everything else. But, if you could search deep enough, then positional play is not needed, because tactics would win the game. Positional play is a simple human "crutch" that we rely on because we can't search deeply enough. A good example would be correspondence chess, because they are almost all tactics, and *very deep* tactics at that. Because the human has enough time to analyze very deeply to see the forced outcome of a move, rather than relying on positional intuition as to how the move will work out. But it's trivial to prove that with enough search, positional chess doesn't exist at all... because the game is most definitely finite in size. >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.