Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:37:19 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 17:14:51, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 12, 1998 at 16:59:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>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, > >You can't ! This is the problem in your definition: you cannot search >deep enough. You forget a few sentences before you defined it. >You are like an alcoholic who says: i will not drink anymore. >He goes 3 meters. And than he drinks again. >you always claim , and sometimes very impressive, with heavy machines >and lots of energy used for your big machines: we don't drink anymore ! >And when it comes to show your results, you suddenly drink. >You cannot always claim for you OUT_time. >You have to play the move within the time ! >If you would have infinite time, or infinite machine-power, you could >play accurate. But this is the main problem, isn't it ? >Mail chess is completely different. In mail-chess I can even better >bluff than in real chess. Because my illusion (bluff) can be much deeper >and more difficult to see than in normal chess. The more time for the >move, the more iterations my bluff can be created. See Copperfield ! He >still find ways to fool the people. >Because his illusions grow with the time per move. > I am trying to point out the fallacy in your reasoning. What is positional to you, is tactical to Cray Blitz and Deep Blue, because they can see much deeper. What is positional to CSTal, might well be tactical to fritz or Crafty because they search much deeper. But *no* human wins a game without utilizing tactics. Intuition is not enough. We all "calculate" at times to see if a move wins or loses. >> 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. > >It is trivial to prove ! If you would have enough search. But you >haven't. So it is not trivial. It is trivial in theory , but not in >life. Do you live in life or in theory. I think you live much in theory. > > >I wish you much time to solve this problem. I don't think you will ever >reach it. Look into the games, not many moves ? Almost a few moves out >of book and <ou >your (lets be fair: mine too) best chess programs fail lousy. >And not in blitz. In 40/120. >And not with big things. Not with noisy sacs. With easy manouevers. Easy >traps. >How old is a child to play these things ? :-)) > >Ok - I don't think you will have the time to come that deep that you >will stop these games happen. The question is, when you live by intuition alone, as you suggest, how long before you die by intuition. IE I'll bet that for every such attack against genius that CST wins, there are multiple games that it will lose. And I don't call that "positional" chess. I call it "suicide".
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.