Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Interesting CST position

Author: Fernando Villegas

Date: 15:57:57 06/28/00

Go up one level in this thread


On June 27, 2000 at 19:31:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On June 27, 2000 at 18:13:26, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>
>>Tricky issue is to use the "understanding" word for this kind of problems. Some
>>tends at once to think of it as something with a human-like kind of
>>understanding and from then on they say not just one program understand a shit.
>>But as far my knowledge and experience of CSTAl tell me, this program really
>>"understand" in the sense it has code lines to tackle these kinds of situations.
>>That is, in hardware or software realm, understanding.
>>Fernando
>
>
>Maybe... but since it loses those same kinds of positions more often than
>it wins them, at least watching it play on ICC, it appears (to me) to simply
>be 'speculative'.  'Speculative' is only good if it wins...

Hi Bob:
Well, you have introduced in the debate an even more trickier word,
"speculative". But what is more, I do not see what you are aiming to. I have
some good positional understanding or at least an human kind of positional
understanding, good or bad you will agree that it is human and nevertheless I
lose many games; then, because of that, it is the case my knowledge or
understanding becomes "speculative"?
The point of the score probes nothing except in the extreme case you lose all
the time, in all positions. One thing is to understand in the sense you use some
rules to tackle an issue, other things is if that rules are good enough. Now I
understand that for speculative tyou mean that a program -or a human- simply
launch an atack just to see what happens but weithout understanding the
position. Well, that could be the case, but it is not more than an speculation.
And what happens, besides, with speculative attacks that has an element of
chance BUT are based in some kind of understanding of the position? You would
say that the famous Andersen game againts K. was just speculative -because so
has been probed later- and then without understanding?
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.