Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:22:37 07/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2001 at 16:55:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 04, 2001 at 06:47:51, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On July 03, 2001 at 19:12:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >> >>>The tactical skill of computers is so high that on a high end machine, >>>it's a fluke to beat one for 99.999% of everyone who plays against them. >>> >> >>That's the reason why I'm convinced that Chess is 95% Tactics and only 5% or >>less , strategy. > >Depends on who's playing, I think. Some sweeping generalizations: > >For GM's it's probably the other way around. In other words, they'll gladly >drop a pawn for improved development much of the time. The same is for computers. Junior is going to be happy to sacrifice a pawn for positional advantage. There are even cases when the sacrifice is wrong but I believe that Amir investaged it and found that it is not a good deal to avoid some bad sacrifices when you avoid more good sacrifices. He exaplained in an interview in chessbase that the sacrifices of Junior is not a speculative play and Junior simply does not know better. Programmers wasted a lot of time in finding a better evaluation function and I believe that the evaluation function of the programs is superior relative to GM's in part of the cases. Uri
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.