Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 13:21:56 03/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2000 at 12:03:33, blass uri wrote: >The question is what is the definition of being better in tactics. easy, for me better in tactics means: it does not make mistakes that cause losing pieces or lose whole game in a chess-game. better in tactics does not mean for me finding key moves in test-suites since these positions often are TOO late. the opponent made the mistakes a few moves or 1 move before, so it is not often the program finding the key move that was good, but the opponent doing very weak. the difference to a chess-game bahaviour is important. here the programs have PB behaviour, and they plan to come into certain positions (e.g. don't allow their pieces to be trapped). in a test-suite positions all this has happened before, but the finder program does not have to take care about. you can write a test-suite program that is very good but plays weak chess in real games. >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. some extensions may help solving test-suites, and programmers have to put them into, but do not help playing better chess or beeing better in game-tactics. >I believe that usually good solvers are better in tactics by my definition but i have to disagree here. >I think that it is possible that a program is going to be better in finding key >moves and not be better in tactics. this is my point, yes. >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. right. tuning chessmaster can make such a FINDER out of it, but the finder will not generally play better = stronger in tactics. >Maybe you define as tactics part of what I define as positional understanding positional understanding is different from tactical understanding IMO. you mix them. i don't believe in this. sorry. again i have to disagree. >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.