Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:59:12 01/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1998 at 01:46:38, Mark Young wrote: >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. This is true of any game of this type (checkers, chess, go, etc.). Of course chess is solvable, you mention two different ways of doing it. This doesn't make the game less interesting for humans and it shouldn't make it less interesting for computers. bruce
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.