Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:40:21 07/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2001 at 03:36:04, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 17:54:26, Kevin Stafford wrote: > >>>The point made above was just to stress the importance of the tactics , let me >>>add the following inspired words by I.Marin : >>> >>>"Chess is ONLY moves in a chessboard, chess is only tactics. If you calculate >>>thoroughly enough you will beat Kasparov and everybody else because "positional >>>mistakes" simply don't exist: they are simply tactical errors with long term >>>consequences." >>> >>>Best Regards >> >>While Ignacio is correct that chess is only tactics in the most abstract sense, >>this quote is also slightly misleading. This is because both humans and >>computers have a finite tactical window beyond which they cannot accurately >>calculate (at least in a reasonable amount of time). It has been shown that >>increasing the depth of this window is difficult, as the search tree grows >>exponentially with each ply increase. It is for this reason that positional >>considerations are in fact relevant. > >I think that the above consideration is applicable to the humans, since the >comps can easily manage huge search trees and have tactical skills far beyond >any human player. > >> >>I define a positional move as one that leads to no obvious, immediate tactic, >>but is speculative in that it might lead to tactics which are beyond the current >>tactical window. No one is disputing that tactics are not extremely important >>(and in my opinion, are the very soul of chess), but I do believe that playing >>for tactics alone will put you at a disadvantage to a person or machine with >>positional understanding, unless your tactical window is sufficiently deeper >>than theirs. > >Exactly , If I can see one move deeper than you, you can have a fantastic >strategy but at the end I will be the winner. > > It is for this very reason that there has been a shift in chess >>programming away from exclusively fast searchers towards engines with more >>"chess knowledge" in their evaluation functions. >> >>-Kevin > >There are different "schools of thought" about the above point: you have to get >an eval that doesn't slow down too much the search speed (i.e. not too complex), >otherwise the chess knowledge is of no avail , since you have not enough >deepness of search. I do not believe in it. a complex evaluation function can help you to be better in tactics because you can get better rules which lines to prune and which lines to extend. 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.