Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:58:48 05/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 04:24:42, blass uri wrote: > >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. > I agree 100%. And have said this in the past. The point being that you still can increase knowledege though search. Because of the true nature of chess being 100% tactics. The programmer just need to understand what knowledege he needs to code into the program. And what knowledege he can get from the search. >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.