Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 11:10:56 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 12:17:09, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 09, 2001 at 11:12:25, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>When I responded to the initial article, I was responding to an article with >>quotes such as: >> >>"Because Chess is ONLY moves in a chessboard,chess is only tactics." >> >>""positional mistakes" simply don't exist: they are simply tactical errors with >>long term consequences" >> >>In my response, I agreed with this in theory but not in practice. My argument >>was that given the current ability of humans and computers, and the fact that >>chess is complex, it is not possible to calculate anywhere near to all >>possibilities and hence we need other techniques for helping to estimate the >>values of moves. > >Perfectly said. This is the sector where computers overcomes humans, the brute >force power of deep calculation. > >> >>At no point have I ever said that calculation is not a major part of chess. So >>please stop telling me it is - I agree with this!!! Instead, tell me why it is >>the ***ONLY*** important part of chess!!! Please read the initial article that >>was posted. Please read the quotes above. >> >>Why is chess only tactics? > >Since it is a mathematical game, or if you prefer a "disconnected series of >problems to solve" as one of Deep Blue's fathers stated. > >> >>Let me make this clear... I believe that chess is not just tactics. I believe >>that while tactics/calculation is a major part of chess, other considerations >>such as strategy and positional evaluation are also important. > >Not as much as the tactics part IMHO. But you do admit that it is not *only* tactics then? I don't care how much importance you place on tactics/calculation, the main point is that we are now agreeing tactics is not 100%? Once again, I disagreed with the article saying: "chess is only tactics". > >>I believe that >>none of these aspects is easy to master for either a human or computer player. >> >>Gordon > >Not completely true since the tactics aspects are easily mastered by comps. Wrong! There are many *tactical* test positions that computers can't solve. They may be better than humans, but many positions are far from easy. To put it another way... If you think that chess is mainly tactics and that this is "easily mastered by comps", why has it taken so many years for the best computers to beat the best humans? Also, do you think that Fritz will defeat Kramnik? Do you think that Kramnik can calculate better than Fritz? If Kramnik wins, what elements of his chess playing ability will be major factors in his success? Gordon > >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.