Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 10:24:19 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2000 at 06:26:10, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 20, 2000 at 03:23:38, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>Now my _guess_ is that what most call 'beauty' is taking a chance that move we >>made can be a blunder but opponent will go wrong. > >I disagree. > >Humans consider a number of things beautiful. Examples: >1) Connected rooks on an open file >2) Lack of isolated pawns >3) Two bishops next to each other on wide open diagonals >etc. > >If you can maneuver yourself into positions with beautiful stuff, I would say >that you're playing beautifully. You might lose, but you're still playing >beautifully. > >-Tom I would say in above examples you try to play well, but beautiful? Beauty is something beyond reason. Can KPK ending be beutiful? Nah.. it's trivial. Lets add one more pawn.. can KPKP be beautiful... can KPNKP... etc. At some point, by adding more and more pieces, we reach the stage which is beyond TBs or _my_ ability to calculate to the end. Then 'educated guessing' begins... and that guess can be cometimes beautiful to me. But while I know it's deterministic, and I'm only too stupid to solve given position, I refrain from comparing computerchess styles... it's all series of 'if() then()' statements anyway :) -Andrew-
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.