Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:24:59 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 10:19:28, Mike Hood wrote: >>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. Then please define what you consider strategy and what you consider consider tactics. >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. Ahem. Take a look in the archive and see what I posted on the Smirin-Shredder game. This is _exactly_ the analysis my program was making. >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. The computer doesn't base it's move decision on a single line. For that one in the mainvariation, it will have considered many very similar positions in the sidevariations, with similar patters. By all means, that means that it's done a strategical analysis, and seen that even if the best moves are played it will get into a better position. The computers evaluation itself is almost entirely based on pattern recognition. If strategy is patterns, computers sure will be damn good at it. -- GCP
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.