Author: Pete Galati
Date: 07:59:20 06/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2000 at 02:42:22, blass uri wrote: >On June 26, 2000 at 02:39:43, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 26, 2000 at 02:02:17, Terry Ripple wrote: >> >>>Thankyou for any information in advance on this topic. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Terry >> >>I do not know what is the definition of "positional" chess. >> >>Every program has positions that it understands better and position that it does >>not understand. >> >>If you mean finding the best move when there is no one move that wins material >>then I believe that humans also do not understand often what is the best >>move so we cannot know which programs is best. >> >>It is possible to do a test suite based on positions that humans understand but >>it is only part of the practical positions that program have to play when they >>do not see a way to win material. >> >>Uri > >I can add that another problem is that there are positions that humans believe >that they understand but they do not understand. > >Uri That's always an on-going problem. For me, most programs see the position better, because I'm not even looking at all the posibilities my opponent has, I'm not even close. But a person with better understanding of the game, and a better instinct can often see the position better than a program can. For the most part programs still need to be concerned with gaining material. If I don't have a clear game plan that I'm working on, or if I just can't think of what to do at the moment, I'll gladly capture the unprotected pawn if it's not going to destroy my position beyond repair. I'm sure that positional programs take approx the same approach, but I could be wrong. Pete
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.