Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:04:25 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 17:30:02, Fernando Villegas wrote: >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 Would this concept play chess? Yes, but it has to many holes in it to be useful. And I think it would be the wrong track to pursue.
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.