Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:46:38 01/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 1998 at 22:41:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 28, 1998 at 17:13:52, Mark Young wrote: > >> I think chess makes a poor yard stick for measuring computer >>intelligence. >> Chess is all tactics, If for example it were possible today to make a >>32 man >> tablebase would it not play perfect chess? Even a simple full width >>chess >> program run on a fast enough computer would play perfect chess if it >>could see >> mate from move one. Intelligence is much more then speed of >>calculation. > >The idea that chess is all tactics is less likely to be heard from >someone who has written a strong program. > >Sure, there are a lot of tactics in chess, but you gotta fix what is >broken, and when people start beating you because they know when a >bishop is bad and a knight is good, and this isn't something that can be >solved with an extra ply or a cute extension. And once you've made a >little improvement in that area, they'll find something else. > >Tactical strength is great, but you have to get further than this or >you'll get seriously stuck. > >bruce You're right to a point with today's computers, but chess itself is all tactics. Would not a 32 man tablebase, or a simple full width chess program that could see to mate from move one, play perfect chess? It would not care if a bishop is bad or a knight is good, only that a position is won, drawn or lost. The term positional play is a human concept to explain what we can not see tactically. While its true that the type of program you mentioned in your example is written from a "positional" point of view, that is only due to the limitations of both today's computers and the human mind, not due to the true nature of chess. You may have written a strong chess program, but you're still wrong on this point. mark
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.