Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 18:40:56 03/18/00
Re-reading an old book by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky -How not to Play Chess- I not only realized that, in fact, I learned very well the lesson how not play it, but also I picked up this, that sounds to me like just another reason to make a program with dual engine, one for tactics and one for strategy. Let me quote: "When there is no clear forced win in sight, then you must do all that yopu posiibly can to streghtten your pieces, ie, your position..." In fact, that's the way strong players do the job: first looking for something tactical, then if nothing of the sort is found, looking for something quiet to improve his position. In each case they aply -probably unsconciously- different way of thinking. Programs, on the contrary, had merged in only one code -with excepcions I suppose: I understand that christophe's Tiger has a lot of modules to different situations- tactics and "knowledge" and so they does not optimize neither of those aspects. Or, like CSTAL, they fall in tactical deadly ravines due to lack of search because heavy amount of knowledge code and so some sloweness, or they miss the point even if they go very deep in the position, like happens to many fast searchers. So, I insist: why not a dual approach? You win time if tactics are the issue, not encumbered by positional stuff, but you get also better play if tactics are not relevant and so you go to the strategic module. Why not? 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.