Author: blass uri
Date: 09:03:33 03/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2000 at 10:39:49, Thorsten Czub wrote: <snipped> >you don't understand my point. you want to measure tactical behaviour and mix it >up with finding key-moves faster. these are 2 different topics. The question is what is the definition of being better in tactics. My definition is that a program that can see faster a big change in evaluation is better in tactics and it is possible to prove that program A is better than B in tactics by stesting them in the same positions from games and see how much time they need to see the change. I believe that usually good solvers are better in tactics by my definition but I think that it is possible that a program is going to be better in finding key moves and not be better in tactics. For example if you reduce the value of the pieces you can get a better solver but you do not get a program that is better in tactics. The point is that you can by a test suite of positions from games when the target is to see a clear change in evaluation and not to find a key move to see which program is better in tactics by my definition. If a program inspite of being better in tactics by my definition is weaker in games, then I define the reason as a better positional understanding. Maybe you define as tactics part of what I define as positional understanding Uri
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.