Author: Mike S.
Date: 19:02:35 09/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2001 at 19:25:38, Uri Blass wrote: >(...) >I believe that using computers only to check blunders is a common mistake >and humans simply underestimating the computers. > >They are not good only in tactics and they can give you after a long search a >good positional move. What is your impression, after which time a noticeable increase of the positional qualitiy occurs in general (please give your hardware data also)? Is this different, depending on each program? Furthermore I'd be interested, if you can give examples (or explanations) of which kind of positional insight the programs get at correspondence analysis time, which they usually don't get under normal time conditions. Are these still "static" positional things, or does a kind of planning become visible etc.? Can you express a general opinion of what current programs can do positionally, and what they can't (yet)? Thanks, Mike Scheidl
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.