Author: Mark Young
Date: 18:10:17 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 16:41:58, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 12, 1998 at 13:05:24, Mark Young wrote: >>>They have NO idea about positional-topics. And tactics is really not the >>>problem. >>>If all chess games are 100 % tactics (what is often told here) - where >>>is the tactics in those games here ? > >>So what you are saying is that their is no tactics in this game. So even >>if the program could see all the way to checkmate from move one it still >>would have lost this game. > >Who of us is the dreamer Mark ? You know that only God will be able to >calculate the chess-game until the end. So - why do you always come with >the same stupid point. Of course if I could calculate from the beginning >to the end, i could say: anything tactics. BUT : only god can do this. >So - don't try to be god. And don't try to argue this way. >Or are you GOD ? >I guess you are not. I hope you are not. :-)) > There is no need to drag God into this. He has more important things to do. I just don’t know why you are so dogmatic in your thinking about this. I’m sorry that you don’t like the way I state my point. I’m only trying to show you that a deeper search can give you positional understanding. I agree we can not see all the way to checkmate and computers my never be able to do so. But the point is if they could it would have perfect understanding of chess. I know this is hard for you so try to keep up. Now does a program need to see all the way to checkmate to get understand, or can it gather it bit by bit as the search gets deeper. I think it has been shown the more likely answer is it can get more and more positional understanding from the its search as it sees deeper and deeper. I think this is the concept being used by the so-called fast and dumb programs. Now since the so-called smart and slow programs still only have a low grade of positional understanding programmed into them. It makes sense to try and use a fast search to get understanding, Because this also makes you faster and stronger in direct tactics. I think Fritz 5, Nimzo98 and Junior 4.6 have shown this to be a valid concept. I was also told when I was learning this game to think of tactics and position as different things. And this is fine. It works well for us humans to think in those terms. But I came to realize that the true nature of chess is not this way. And one of the ways of showing this is saying if a computer could see all the way to checkmate would it have perfect positional understand. And the answer is of course yes. Or you could take a logical progression. Does a 5-man table base give you perfect play? Well we know the answer is yes. That means with 5 pieces it has perfect positional and tactical understanding. From just a tactical search that has been stored. It needs no so-called positional knowledge that is in the chess program itself. The program needs only the table base. This hold true for 4,3 and 2 man table bases. It will also hold true for 6, 7, 8, and all the way up to 32-man table base. What this show is that tactics and positional understanding are one in the same. Other wise how could just a tactical search from a table base give you perfect positional understanding and perfect play. >>Because their is no tactics. Because like you think Positional and >>tactical understanding are two different things. And not 2 sides of the >>same coin. > >Even if you would have ONE coin, you would have - as you say yourself - >2 sides of ONE coin. So - even knowing about THE ONE coin, you would >have to differenciate between tactics/positional. >Why do you argue this stupid here ? >Why do you deny or why do you refute to differenciate between tactics >and positional ? Because you are not capable to do so ? Because it does >not fit in your point of view of the world? >I have the feeling you behave like a religious person, believing in >something, an idea, instead of understanding it. >If you would play chess, you would be able to differenciate between the >2 things. Please show me which is the complicate move in the games I >have shown ? >There is none. The topic of the 3 games is very primitive ! Nothing >complicate. >Learners and beginners would understand what YOU try to deny here, that >tactics cannot cope with the stuff in the games.
This page took 0.03 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.