Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:44:32 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 19:53:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 05, 2002 at 20:44:07, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 05, 2002 at 20:05:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On December 05, 2002 at 17:32:13, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >><snip> >> >>>>I'm not clear what you mean when you say "Positional >>>>Position." [Also, what is it, exactly, that is "impossible"?] >>> >>>Example, a position without tactics, meaning without ordinary eval advantages. >> >><snip> >> >>Well, maybe we need help from the chess programmers on this one. I do not know >>what "ordinary eval advantages" would be. > >Simple 0.6 results on the display for example. But I want to talk about >positions with "nothing" tactical and results of all key moves in a range of 0.1 I fail to see why "positions with nothing tactical" could not have large evaluation scores. [Incidentally, we need to agree on the definition of "positions with nothing tactical." Maybe a few examples would suffice.] I wonder whether or not it is true that EVERY position has one or moves in it that are "tactically dumb." I'm not sure it is possible to find a position for which every available move is completely non-tactical. Maybe the position having only two kings and nothing else? If a chess engine excelled at tactics but was "no good at all" at positional chess, then that engine would evaluate "positions with nothing tactical" as having ALL moves as being of equal value. True? On the other hand, if a chess engine also excelled at positional chess, it should be able to distinguish between good positional moves and poor moves. It should also be able to assign relative values to the moves. Perhaps the real issue here is whether or not it is impossible for any chess programmer, no matter how smart, to produce a chess engine which was good at positional chess. Even the modern chess engines have some skill at positional chess, I suspect. >>Perhaps is depends on the chess >>engine. One engine might ordinarily identify certain kinds of advantages and >>another chess engine might ordinarily identify a different set of kinds of >>advantages. > >Of course. > > >> >>I prefer to give the chess engine programmers the benefit of the doubt on this >>one. They probably have done a lot of work in making their position evaluation >>code work well with a wide range of position types. But I'm just guessing, of >>course. : ) > >Your smilies are a bit irritating me. > > > >> >>Bob D.
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.