Author: Pekka Karjalainen
Date: 12:22:20 05/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2002 at 11:31:59, Vine Smith wrote: >>I don't think computer go is going anywhere :-/ >>Now, looking at this list, what does it mean that a game A is more tactical than >>B? Can you explain? Does the term positional play in draughts have any >>relation to positional play in chess, since they are two completely different >>games? >> >>Pekka > >It might be a judgment call in the absence of establishing very precise >definitions of what is meant by "tactical" and "positional" to prove one's case. >However, I believe that the very simplicity of draughts is what makes the game >so tactically oriented. Contact between the pieces occurs almost immediately, >and calculation to great depth is required to determine the consequences of each >move. I believe there are no "easy" moves in draughts that parallel "easy" moves If this is true, then I agree with you. I do not have enough experience with draughts to claim anything different. Fair enough. >in chess, where the correct move can sometimes be found almost with any >calculation whatsoever. At the other extreme, go is almost entirely positional, >and only certain situations like "ko fights" (if I remember the term correctly) >can be calculated tactically. That is the correct term. However, go in my amateur level experience, requires a high level of tactical calculation in many other kinds of tactical situations as well. Most of the time when I play I am working through concrete variations, but at higher level that may be less. It is also possible to play go quite well on just "feeling", if one has some experience with the game. OC, then the play is weaker, but it is not necessarily disastrously so. >If I understand your argument correctly, I believe you are challenging whether >draughts is more tactical than chess based on the fact that computer programs >seem to be doing roughly as well in both games, implying they are equally I am not really challenging your claim, I am just interested in why you say it and how you came to the conclusion. I think your points above are good enough for me, and I'm content to let the matter rest. >tactical. I think, though, that draughts just gets much less attention than >chess, and that if equivalent programming energy was devoted to draughts as to >chess, then this game would also be dominated by programs like 8x8 checkers. >I found the Samb-Buggy match strangely fascinating, despite not having played so >much as 8x8 checkers for many years. There are many similarities to the chess >world, even downloadable games in "PDN" format, where the "D" is for draughts, >of course. It would be interesting to know what the draughts masters themselves >think, and if there are any players who are reasonably strong in both draughts >and chess that could make a truly informed comparison of the games. I agree with that, too :) > >Regards, >Vine
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.