Author: Mike Hood
Date: 13:26:13 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 14:05:37, Russell Reagan wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 10:19:28, Mike Hood wrote: > >>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. > >I think part of the reason you don't understand what you're talking about is >that you don't understand what strategy and position play are. Chess is not 95% >tactics as you said below. The quote was that "chess is 99% tactics", and even >that is incorrect. Chess is 100% tactics, and that is a fact. One day computers >will be fast enough to look at every possible continuation from the opening >until mate or draw ends the game, and at that point, chess will be 100% tactics. >The fact that no current human or computer cannot see that far ahead doesn't >change the fact that chess is purely a tactical game. > >Now regarding strategy and positional play. When a player makes a move based on >positional ideas, his goal is really tactical in nature. A positional advantage >is nothing more than some difference in the position which increases that >players possibility for a tactical advantage later on. No player ever won a game >without using tactics or some kind. For example, you can't force a mate without >making use of a double threat. If you only have a single threat, then the king >can escape, right? So you have to have two threats that will both lead to mate, >or you can't force mate upon the king. > >Positional ideas and strategy are our attempts to make up for our shortcomings >as tactical calculators. The only reason a human plays for an active bishop or >tries to make use of "holes" or bad pawns is because it will lead to a decisive >tactical advantage eventually, or at least that is what the player is aiming for >with his "strategy". > >When computers finally (maybe not in our lifetime) can see from the beginning of >the game until the end of the game, "positional" ideas and "strategy" will no >longer matter. It won't matter if you have a positional advantage like a good >bishop or if you can create all kinds of "holes" in your opponents pawn >structure, because the computer will still be saying, "mate in 147". > >I think it helps to try to understand the difference between tactics and >strategy by looking at more than just chess, because tactics and strategy are a >part of any competition. Take American football for example. They have >predetermined plays that they run. Those are their strategies. Their tactical >abilities are their abilities to run fast, be quick and agile, etc. Their >tactical abilities are their physical abilities. Now let's think about this from >two specific examples. Let's say you take a professional American football team. >They have no strategy at all, no plays that they plan on running. They play a >team of 40 year old computer chess programmers from CCC. Now the CCC team is >filled with genius minds, and so we use our brilliant minds to come up with the >best strategies ever developed for the game of American football. The fact of >the matter is that we would still lose horribly, and most of us probably >wouldn't last through the first handful of plays because we'd be injured by the >drastically more superior physical specimens on the other team. In other words, >their tactical ability would crush our strategic ability. > >So where does strategy come in to play in American football? Well, it comes into >play when you have two teams who are relatively close in tactical ability >(physical ability). If you have two teams who are just as fast as each other and >just as quick and agile as each other, then strategy will make the difference. >Strategy is the attempt to make up for the lack of tactical ability, or to >enhance the chances for your tactical ability to succeed. > >So in this sense computers do have strategies. They do have REAL ones too. Now >what did I say that strategy was? I said it was the attempt to create a position >in which you have a better chance for your tactical ability to thrive. So how >does a computer create a position in which it's tactical ability can thrive? >Well, against a human opponent, the computer's strategy is to keep the position >wide open and keep things purely tactical. The human's strategy is to keep >things quiet and calm. The human's job is much harder, because he or she has to >keep the position quiet, while at the same time building up advantages behind >his own line and when the time is right break open the position and let his >advantages all come out at once. He uses his STRATEGY to make up for his lack of >tactical ability against the computer. His strategy gives him better chances for >his inferior tactical ability to succeed farther along in the game where the >computer cannot see yet. > >>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. > >A computer is perfectly capable of using this strategy that you put forth, and >it is perfectly capable of doing it over 20 or 30 or 100 moves if it needs to. >It doesn't calculate that far ahead (but neither do humans). > >>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. > >Nope, wrong again. You aren't understanding what tactics and strategy are, >still. Strategy and tactics are both mainly patterns. Strategy is the attempt to >acheive a position in which you are likely to have better chances that your >tactical possibilities will be successful. > >Chess is 100% tactics, and you can't win a game without making use of tactics. >You can't gain any advantage PERIOD if you do not use tactics. If your opponent >makes a bad move and gives you something for free, then you can win by that >method, but you can't force a win without tactics. So tactics seem pretty >important huh? So basically you NEED tactics. You're underlying thought behind >all moves is ultimately (maybe very far along in the game even) to "get tactics, >get tactics, get tactics..." and strategies are simply methods of "getting >tactics" so you can win a game. > >I've put a lot of thought into this for many years and created theories about >all of this, studied what other people have researched in the past, and I have >applied my ideas to other games besides chess, and they work. That's what I >would recommend you do if you are trying to get a grasp on what exactly tactics >are and what exactly strategy is. See if you can figure out what the tactics of >other games are and what the strategies of other games are. > >Back to my football example, if one team is better phsically (meaning better >tactically) than the other team, then they will usually win. For example, if one >team is simply faster than the other team by a significant margin, then how is >the other team going to stop them if they can't catch them? Where strategy comes >in, for example, would be when one team was maybe only slightly faster than the >other team, and the slower team used a strategy of knocking down the linemen at >their knees so there is no place for the fast team to run to, or running a draw >play where you fake like you are running the ball and draw the fast players in, >and then at the last second you throw the ball. That is an example of using a >strategy to overcome a tactical deficiency. The slower team couldn't beat the >other team with their tactics. They were slower so if they just tried to run >faster than the other team they would lose, so they came up with a plan to get >ahead of the other team to begin with, so that even though they were faster, >they couldn't catch up to the slower team. > >Perhaps the simplest example: Who won? The tortoise or the hair? > >Russell Russell, although you're contradicting my basic tenet (ie that computer programs don't use strategy, they just use brilliant tactics), our viewpoints aren't so far apart. Using your metaphor, the grandmaster is the tortoise and the computer program is the hare. The computer program can analyse 100000 positions while the grandmaster is analysing a single position. And yet the grandmaster can still win. How? The grandmaster makes up for his severe loss of speed by using "strategy". He can't outrun his opponent, so he throws the ball at the last moment. This is possible at the moment, but one day computers will become so fast that not even strategy will save him. As rightly claimed in a parallel thread on this topic, tactics -> infinite = strategy
This page took 0.03 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.