Author: Charles Milton Ling
Date: 22:52:53 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 19:04:33, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Pal: >Beside mistakes, human playing -on strong players- show some long range >planning, a sense of what is going on, a purpose. But this is a very debatable >issue. Probably this feature only show in very strong players, after all. We, >less than 2300 or so, has at most some understanding of position and some short >range plans.Or long range bad plans. Maybe "plan" is just a human way of >thinking, not "the" way to play chess. We say we have a plan when we can >verbalize what we want, but then the issue is what is the rwlationship between >real things in the board and verbal expression of it. This is, I believe, an >open matter. >Fernando Well... Definitely under 2300 myself, I do feel myself capable of finding long-range plans. Of course, they may turn out to be bad, but sometimes they are simply dictated by the position: a backward pawn that won't go away soon, a Q-side majority that indicates which endings to aim for - things like that. Without wanting to get into a quasi-philosophical discussion of the relationship between real things on the board and their verbal expression, I really think the word "plan" is justified for such realizations if coupled with an idea of how use them to one's benefit. To which degree computers are capable of the same thing you people here know far better than I. But there is a difference, and not just the difference that the computer will execute any of its intentions in a tactically flawless way. This is not to say that Fernando is wrong, I just wanted to venture my opinion. Charley
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.