Author: Mike Hood
Date: 07:19:28 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 08:47:26, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 08:36:39, Mike Hood wrote: > >>Everything is based on positional evaluation and >>search depth. If the search depth is deep enough, a computer may make a series >>of moves that simulate a strategy, but that's all it is: a simulation; a fake. > >What allows you do conclude it's a simulation, a fake? I mean that the moves have been achieved by a series of tactical decisions. This might look like a strategy has been followed, but it is merely the illusion of a strategy. Of course, I don't mean to say that this method of playing is ineffective. It's been said that chess is 95% tactics and 5% stragegy. Computer programs are brilliant tacticians, and so a strategy has to be very cleverly devised to outwit them. It takes someone of Smirin's level to devise such a winning strategy. >>Strategy is all about looking at the board and planning a series of moves to >>achieve a goal, whether it's a positional improvement or material gain. Computer >>programs don't do this. All they do is look at the current position and choose >>the next move. That's all. > >By your definition, computers are all about strategy. > >What they do is plan a series of moves (the PV) to archieve positional >improvement or material gain (represented by the evaluation). > >Sometimes they discover a new, better strategy (a fail low), or realize >the strategy they are following at that moment is flawed (a fail low). > >Moreover, my program (and others too I guess) can influence decisions in the >evaluation (which directly influences what move is played) by looking at the >position and determining what manoeuvres will be possible later on. > >If that isn't strategical planning, I don't know what is. > >The problem is that programming knowledge like this is hard. If there were >an easy way to program in 'check whether he will be able to shift all pieces >to our kingside in a while without us being able to do something about it or >launch a counterattack on time', then my program would handle the stonewall >like a GrandMaster. But there isn't, so it has to do with some simpler rules >that aren't always correct. So it will mistakes in the planning, and play >a losing strategy. > >-- >GCP A simple example of a strategy is "My king is poorly positioned on the kingside. I need to move it to the queenside". This is a highly abstract thought, and it might take 20 or more moves to bring it about due to repelling attacks by the opponent. It's true that when a computer chooses a move it generates a "line" of moves, but this whole line is merely an arrow pointing at a single position, reached under the assumption that both the computer program and its opponent make the best possible moves at all junctures. Tactics aim at achieving a position, strategy aims at achieving a pattern.
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.