Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:54:01 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2002 at 12:42:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 28, 2002 at 09:59:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 28, 2002 at 09:02:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:12:53, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>>Will TACTIC's eventually REFUTE! Positional play? >>>> >>>>In the end yes. >>>> >>>>It is my (new) opinion that the nature of chess is just search. >>> >>>the opposite is already clearly proven in tournament play Ed. >>> >>>Note that newer versions from most programs search less deeply >>>than older versions. This is also clear evidence. >> >>I am going to believe that new version search less deeply than older versions >>only if I see that they need more time to see tactics. > >most tactical problems posted on ccc here by now , this includes >testsets like bs2830, they get solved by positional means nowadays >more than by tactical means as was in the past. > Does this really matter? IE does it matter when I win a drag race, whether I produced a bit more horsepower than my opponent, or whether I removed a few more pounds from the automobile than he did? If one program has no eval and one program has a big eval but no search, and they both play well, does it really matter how they do it? Something tells me they will do the same amount of "work" but that the work will be expended in different ways. To produce the _same_ result... I think it is incorrect to solve tactical positions based on positional concepts, because of the exceptions. I also think it is perfectly ok to solve positional things tactically, because then you are seeing the _real_ issue the "positional knowledge" is trying to generalize about... >Good example is nolot #11: > >r1b2rk1/1p1nbppp/pq1p4/3B4/P2NP3/2N1p3/1PP3PP/R2Q1R1K w - - bm Rxf7; > >I remember a time that only diep solved this position. > >>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.