Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 07:11:31 09/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2001 at 09:33:22, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>As far as a computer program is concerned, anything is tactics. > >But this means little in practice. Yes and no. A crappy positional program can play great chess if it just searches deep enough, while a positional genius can get trounced if it doesn't see deep enough to spot the hard tactics. Case in point: Goliath vs Diep Sometimes the search will take ages to see something which is 'eval' in a positional program. But the connection is certainly there. My program can solve several 'positional' positions from the Louget II test set with a material-only eval, by just looking deep enough. >>A better tactical search always helps. > >In general, yes. Not if the tactical search was tested with a "tactical" suite. >The way the search behaves in positions considered "tactical for humans" >is different that the search behaves in "positional ones". >You cand modify the qsearch in order to find more solutions in the first >one but decrease the time needed for the second one. >I believe that both type of tests are useful to gather information. I personally do not believe in 'positional' testsets much. I use real games and check if the program had a plan, and if it had one, if it was consistent and good. -- GCP
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.