Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:05:42 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 18:37:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. If cstal would have 1/100 of the hardware and energy-power, it would search and play as strong. > 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. The power of the human brain is, that these processes were mainly put into unconsciousness. When I drive my car, i drive it completely different than I have done it when I was 18 and I was a learner. Most of my JOB while driving is done without myself recognizing what I am doing. I can listen to music in the radio, or to my neighbour telling me his ideas about communism. And I am still driving. This is different to my first driving lessons, where I drove the car very weak, BECAUSE i drove it like a computer: considering about anything with my will. Nobody who drives this way, will become a good car-driver. And nobody playing like a computer, will become a good chess-player/car driver. Of course a fast-driver. But still a stupid driver. Ok - only my idea. We are where we always end. You have your point, I do have my point. Why not concentrate on the games instead ?! > Intuition is not enough. We all "calculate" at >times >to see if a move wins or loses. If we measure how many hours of the day you are willingly doing something, and how many hours your unconsciousness drives you, you will be surprised... >The question is, when you live by intuition alone, as you suggest, No - i don't suggest to ONLY live by intuition. CSTal e.g. has a search !! So it does not only trust on evaluation. But it uses the search not for stupid moves. I am not saying you should forget to think. I am only saying that you will never reach your target with your strategy. Because the way you are doing it is unbalanced. > how >long before you die by intuition. Even creatures who forget anything they have done willingly after 15' have a good life and have fun... :-)) But computers are much more primitive. > IE I'll bet that for every such >attack >against genius that CST wins, there are multiple games that it will >lose. Right. And we normally practise this multiple losing on championships ! We ask the other participants to look away until I have a game on board that will work. So we have done in the past, and we will do in the future. Sometimes we pay the opponent program, or the other participants. Costs 1000$ to pay the ICCA ! It is very difficult Bob to play multiple games on championships. Especially against Genius with black ! I hope you try once !! In opposite to you I was that fair that I showed Ossi before all the games we played against Genius, and that the engine won. And no matter which opening was chosen. He said: nice - so we will chose a quiet opening. It did not work. We work on the problem.... :-))) >And I don't call that "positional" chess. I call it "suicide". So we have a different point of view. We try to win with committing suicide against the fast-searchers. Who dies first ?!? Do we get a pacifistic nobel-price for this method ?!
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.