Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:46:14 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
OK: What I try to say is the following: a) chess is played in positions which face the player with its own problems. b) this problems cannot usually -sometimes they can: a position can have hidden inside it a mate in three, to say it simple- be fully solved in the sense an adittion is solved. There you are right and we could agre here that nothing can be said about what is the absolte best move to play. c) the choosing of a move must be done anyway and it proceeds trought some kind of calculation that truly has the horizon limit as its extreme paradigm. It is the screen beyond which there is "mistery". d) The precedent step to choose in that conditions oif uncertainty you call it guess or thesis. e) the precedent step I call it calculation within limits, as anyway happens in any kind of science. f) why? because I believe that the fact that the horizon limit does not let us to know in advance which is the very best theoretical move, that does not means that there are not solid facts inside the area of the observable game that canot be taken into account to get an objetive best practical, aproximative best move. g) according to you, this "taking into account" is uncomparable; it depends of styles, etc. That's reason you say the "why" is so important. According to me, the scope inside the certain area -inside the reach of ply search- gives a ground of common rationality that lets to compare differents ways to grasp the situation and qualify them in a quantitative manner. And this degree of better qualification appears in results. That's my point. At last I hope we at least agree in what exactly we disagree Cheers Fernando
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.