Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:51:33 05/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 02:02:35, Mark Young wrote: >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? Chess is finite. But nobody will ever reach it to the end of the tree, nor produce a 32-stone endgame-database. So - what is the sense of you claiming it is FINITE when we will never be able to solve it ? If you show me ONE 32-stone database in your life-time, i will apologize to you. As long as this is not real, it makes no sense for me to avoke or imply or talk about chess as an infinite thing, when nobody on the whole world, no computer and no human-beeing is able to solve chess. You seem to live in a theory world. But your theory in mind is not the real world. Sometimes it fits together. Rarely. But sometimes, as we see it from your statements, it does not fit together. 100 % is something very very sure. I doubt that you will ever prove in chess 100 %. Especially not if it is about moves in the 3rd or 4th or 17th moves, others than forced-mates. >It has been you saying that the fast searchers a positional weak, >stupid, dumb. >And how good Chess System Tal is at knowledege. CSTal has a little knowledge concerning king-attacks. If you call this positional, than you your defintion of positional seems to be limited. Agan - if it would have been designed to play positional, we would not have implemented a function called TAL-function. It would have been named into Petrosian function or whatever, but tal surely stands for fishing in the dirt and sacs. >What does the name of the program have to do with what we are talking >about. Pardon ? You cannot take CSTal as an example for good positional play, since it cannot play good positional. Its algorithms do not try to win by positinal play but by attacking the king. You don't know what the name has to do with attacking the king. Sorry for you. >You are correct about Tal. And I would never confuse cst program with >his style of play. If your goal was to be accurate about naming your >program, and you still wanted to use Tal's name. You should have called >the program No System at Tal. Aha. Thanks for your constructive comments.
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.