Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 12:38:15 04/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1998 at 12:35:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On April 14, 1998 at 02:58:08, Mats Winther wrote: >>Your view of chess is reductionistic since you think that every >>position can be solved by raw calculation. I am opposed to this view. >> >>Regards >> >>Mats > >Of course a materialist has a reductionistic point of view. >They really believe the Tarrasch way and think there is a best move. >They don't seem to understand the concept of maths anyway. >They still believe that formula's and laws can tell us anything about >the world outside. Not to talk about the world inside. >I thought "Le petit prince" is thaught in schools in our days. Isn't it >? >Strange. Even children understand that reductionism is nonsense... :-)) Wait a little, Thorsten, before shooting at me so easy. After all, I am supposed to be the reductionistic guy...:-) I share with you the feeling that laws cannot tell us everything about the world, but here we are not talking of a wide, undefinite and infinite entity like universe, the dynamics of air or anything like that, we are talking of a closed problem with simple rules. We are talking of chess, not of the 41ยบ simphony by Mozart. To use the artgument against reductionismo as you do is to be a reductionist of the worst kind. Even reductionism must be understood in a wide, not reduictionistic context. There are things that can be reduced and there other that not. There are problems that can be solved aND other that not. Ches is limited in essence even if the number engaged are great. I say more; even is possible that chess cannot be solved on the ground of counting, but less because of a sustantial reason that for a problem of speed of calculation. If you have few pieces on the board is prefectly solved by counting, as ending databases shows clearly. When a program uses that tables, he does not use strategy at all and even counting, as much as all is previously caklculated and counted. Finally, Thosrten, it is worth of consideration the fact that in practiical terms chess does not need to be solved in the theoretical sense of the word, from first move to the last possible move; it is enough to get a mate or a sustrantial advantage in te contexct of a position and that can be done throught calculation and in fact is done that way most of the time. All this meanms I rejecta strateghy? Not at all; general advives as those stragegy gives arws neccesary in the intermediate zone between short tactical horizon and the fully theretical extension of all the moves that are possible. In other words, beyond 10 or 12 moves you need some general signs and that are provided by strategy. 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.