Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 14:30:02 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi again mark: Just another and I hope last shot...for today :-). When you say structural approach is not possible, I think maybe you dont understand what I mean by such thing. I dont say there are some laws to discover. What I say is that from a superior level of analysis, that is, from positioonal structure instead of moves, we have or could have a better point of departure for calculate or guessing. In fact, dear Mark, save in specific cases where the game ends -let us say, a forced mate- even the nmost conclusive and concrete tactical calculation is a kind of a guess AS MUCH AS it is, nevertheless, a non exhaustive calculation. Why a computer goes wrong after, let us say, capturing the typical poisoned B pawn? Simple: because inside the horizon of his tree to win a pawn is something concrete, solid, and then he supposes or guess that beyond that, in the mist of future, that will be good enough. Tactical and positional considerations has both a lot of guessing as much the operation of calculation cannot be finished. If it can be, then we have no problem at all and all this discussion is irrelevant. All this debate is based precisley on the ground of the non resolvable aspect of chess most of the time. The issue, then, is not between concrete calculations and dumb guessing, but between one or another kind of guessing. of course, you can fail with any of them. I am not talking of an unfalible methoid of playing chess, I am talking of a most eficinet mechanism to do gueses, to do sensible decisions when guesses and decisions are the issue because not definitive output is at sight. Regards Fernando
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.