Author: Don Dailey
Date: 14:40:53 06/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1998 at 11:53:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 28, 1998 at 01:57:27, Mark Young wrote: > >>I would agree. Player A can not get "!" until play B does "?" first. Thinking >>about what you and Bob wrote. I wonder just how much more can the programmers >>get out of just software improvments. Have we got about all there is to get from >>improving ones program. How much more can chess programs improve from just >>software? > >Informant defines "!" as being "a very good move". Others have defined this >symbol as meaing "best", but that is obviously not a complete definition. > >A "!" does not have to change the game-theoretical result. > >It is possible and common to get a "!" when playing the losing side of a lost >position that remains lost. > >This is a strange discussion, I don't know what Don is trying to show, but I >think he is wrong that you can't find a tactic unless you are already won. > >In one sense this is by definiition, since if you find a winning move, then you >had a winning position. > >If what Don is suggesting is that there is always more than one path to victory, >this is false. > >If Don is suggesting that a tactical shot *always* springs from positional >advantage, this is also false, unless you want to say that the any position >containing a winning shot is positionally advantageous, in which case there is >no discussion here since we're back to definitions again. > >If Don means that when you find a tactical shot, you often have laid the >groundwork (intentionally or unintentionally) by out-playing your opponent >positionally, then this sounds true to me. It's an old maxim in chess that >tactics tend to flow from positional superiority. > >bruce Bruce, I am not a very good writer and see that just about everything I said was completely confusing to you. All I can say is that your response shows this as you tried repeatedly to guess what I was trying to say and got it wrong. I have no desire to rehash the information and most of it is very simple stuff that everyone knows anyway. Maybe it was so simple you were looking for something much deeper? Suffice it to say that you would probably actually agree with everthing I said if you had understood me properly. - Don
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.