Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:13:39 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 10:51:37, Don Dailey wrote: >Hi Mark, > > >> 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. > >Very well put Mark. Humans change things around to put it in a form >that makes sense to us, and we can digest it by separating these things >in this way. But trying to force this paradigm on a computer may >be the wrong thing to do. > >As Bob says, if we define tactics to be things we can calculate then >what is tactical for Deep blue might be positional for Genius or >Rebel. > >We could simply use this definition: > > Tactics: Things we can directly calculate. > > Positional: Things we must guess at. > This works fine with me. Under this definition I am almost a pure Positional players. I like the way that sounds. :) Mark, he is a positional player. > > >- Don
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.