Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:57:53 04/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 1998 at 22:26:21, Dave Gomboc wrote: >I've been reading a lot of hype about the superiority of "positional >chess" in the past two weeks. I couldn't care less about which moves >look "positionally correct". I care about which moves win. Those may >or may not be different, depending on the specifics of any particular >position. > >In my experience, there are a plethora of positions where a move that >looks "positionally unattractive" is in fact stronger than all of the >alternatives. It is somewhat nauseating to read again and again how >some club players dismiss the "weak play" of today's FM to IM-level >software because they doesn't think it understands basic positional >concepts. Often it is that the club player does not understand what is >required in the position! > >Sure, there are cases where a program plays a stupid, positionally >incorrect move. But it's not as if IMs never do that either, let's be >realistic. > >Dave Gomboc >2129 CFC (Canada), no GM, but not a complete beginner either :) ---------- I could not agree more. I was playing over some games in Bobby Fishers MY 60 memorable games. I was shocked just how well Fritz 5 did as i played though the games in watch mode. Like in the game Botvinnik-Fischer it finds Fischer move 17.... QxBP! in no time. More times then not Fritz 5 found the best way to play the position as suggested by Fischer as compaired to what the other GM's played in the games. I for one do not care how a program comes up with a move. If it does it because its fast and dumb or it find the move because its slow and smart. The point is it finds the best way to play the position.
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.