Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:52:47 07/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2001 at 14:13:42, Robert Raese wrote: > >>>> No, my point is that there are things that you cannot foresee with calculation > >not true in chess. you gave the example of being able to see 80 plies ahead. >suppose i could. wouldn't it prove that "strategy" is mere guesswork... filling >in the blanks with generalities wherever we cannot see accurately in time? Sorry, very true in chess. How many games have we seen where a player develops a strategic plan that matures 40 moves later? many times. On the other hand, how many times have you seen a player calculating 80 plies to obtain the same result? The example I gave from the Ruy Lopez exchange was not made up. >calculation is science. that is why a chess programmer who plays 1800 chess can Calculation is not more science than a hammer is engineering. It is just a tool. >create a program that plays chess 1000 points better. the scientist perfects >the method of calculation, and the machine "knows" what to do with the pieces on >the chessboard... so accurately, so often that it seems a long term strategy was >devised... no, it was just calculation, if this, then this is best, and this is >better..... In theory, if you can calculate 80 plies... but it does not happen yet. As I said, the human body is 75% water; so, do not go to a physician, see a hydrodynamic scientist. Even better, see a physicist since the body is 100% atoms. Would you do that? It is a true statement, by highly impractical! Regards, Miguel
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.