Author: Ian Aston
Date: 12:45:52 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 14:55:27, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 13:04:22, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >> >> >>There is little point in getting carried away with theoritical possibilites. We >>are a long way away from having a machine that can play top level chess on the >>basis of calculation alone. All of the top chess programs have lots of chess >>knowledge. Their playing ability would be greatly decreased if they had this >>knowledge removed and had to play on the basis of calculation alone. >> > >Ok, Gordon. >I think that was pretty clear that when we are talking about calculation, we >imply obviously also the evaluation at the end of it ...otherwise our calculus >is of no help at all for our purposes. >The search for the best move works considering advantages of positional and >material nature, but the evaluation is easily exploited node by node. >The difficult job for we "human beings" is when we have to consider and retain >the huge tree of variants coming in play. > >>Do you realise how many possibilities there are in the game of chess? Do you >>really think that this can be solved by brute force alone? In theory, yes. But >>for practical purposes, it is necessary to think about tactics and strategy and >>positional considerations... etc. >> >>Finally, the article was discussing chess in the general sense and not just from >>a computer chess point of view. In that sense, chess will never be just >>tactics. >> >>Gordon > >IMO CHESS is 99% tactics (Richard TEICHMANN opinion too). Is this a typo or has your opinion shifted. In quite a few of your previous posts you have used a figure of 90% tactics. > >Regards.
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.