Author: Hristo
Date: 15:21:40 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 14:45:32, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 10:51:37, Don Dailey wrote: >>We could simply use this definition: >> >> Tactics: Things we can directly calculate. >> >> Positional: Things we must guess at. > >>- Don > >Strong chess players "calculate" positional stuff as good as tactical >stuff. >They can show with evidence and facts that the move was a positional >blunder. >You cannot call tactics SAVE and positonal things GUESSING. > >Positional stuff can be transformed into material. >Tactical advantage is material. >Positional stuff is material transformed in something else. > >Like Energy. Tactics is physic-laws on materia, positional is energy in >those processes. > >But tactics are not more accurate than positional. >Both are as accurate. >Thats what MY opinion is over the years studying people like Seirawan, >Bronstein, Kosashvili or Kohlweyer/Schaefer fighting against the machine >I operated, or i watched them killing the machine. > >How can you say a positional advantage is less real, just YOU are unable >to COUNT - better - bean-count - it accurate ! > >YOU are the problem. You cannot measure energy as good as measuring >mass. >Thats YOUR problem. Buy a new scales. Sir !!! I'm so glad to see this !!! I think you are absolutely correct about the mass-energy example in relation to the chess game. There is only one small "correction" or "adjustment" the mass and energy are interchangable, because the objective of the game determines the absolute "mass" of a position. Best Regards. Hristo
This page took 0.01 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.