Author: blass uri
Date: 01:24:42 05/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 02:02:35, Mark Young wrote: >On May 29, 1998 at 23:15:01, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On May 29, 1998 at 22:20:42, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>If you want to judge programs on how pretty you think they play. Fine. >>>They rest of us will bean count. You know why, because that how you tell >>>if someone or some thing is better at chess. Thats the way it has always >>>been done. After Alekhine beat Capablanca. I wounder if Capablanca took >>>comfort in the fact that some people thought he played Pretty, and more >>>positional looking moves. The point is you can try to make a program >>>play very positional looking moves. But if its not sound tacticlly, its >>>not worth much. Remember even the positionally minded Humans say that >>>chess is 90% tactics. I tend to think the real nature of chess is 100% >>>tactics. >> >>There is no 100 %. This is against quantum mechanics. Maybe in newton >>mechanics. > >Again you show that you have not a clue, about what you are saying. >Chess is finite. There for is just one huge tactical tree. Do you think >chess is infinite? for practical purposes chess is not 100% tactics and positional understanding is important. There are positions that programs do not understand for many moves so even if I make the program 1000 times faster it will not help. Fritz5 has some positional understanding and this is one of the reasons it is a good program. 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.