Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:31:59 05/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 07:51:33, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. I never claimed we would solve it. I just said the TRUE NATURE OF CHESS IS 100% tatics. But I see you agree with me. So why argue about it. >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 %. Sorry but it already proven that chess is 100 % tactics. No theory here at all. >Especially not if it is about moves in the 3rd or 4th or 17th moves, >others than forced-mates. Just because we can't store the data of the whole chess tree. Does not change chess true nature. Sometimes we talk about positional chess and tactical chess as two diffrent things. But positional chess is a human short cut to try and under stand the vast tactics of chess. Positional chess is nothing more then Tactics we can not see. > >>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, Sorry if i try and talk at your leave. But those are your words not mine. 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. What you need to implement is a win-function. Instead of being a baby and trying to knock down other programs that are better then yours. You would do much better if you just worked on your own program. To see if you can improve it. 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, Like i siad its been you talking about how poor of moves other programs make. Not me. And how good and pretty the moves are of CSTAL >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 0.01 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.