Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 02:59:11 07/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2001 at 04:40:21, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I agree with you , Uri. But if the function is "too complex" don't you think that there is a clear risk to impact the overall search speed ?
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.