Author: scott farrell
Date: 05:11:23 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2002 at 11:05:44, Bob Durrett wrote: what do you think searching deeper and deeper in a normal engine does? It looks to move pieces around and find weaknesses, without making any themselves, and keep testing tactics. I wouldnt say they were clueless. In these sorts of positions, you find most program get less depth, as you cant prune as much, unless its a closed position, then the depth sky rockets, as it cant really find anyway to move pieces effectively. > >How well do chess engines do when the position, after opponent made his/her >move, is quiet and equal? > >The chess literature has much to say about how human GMs treat such positions. >They maneuver in an attempt to create weaknesses in the opponent's position >while avoiding creation of weaknesses in their own camp. It often happens that >the GMs accept some weaknesses if they are perceived to be not as significant as >those created in the opponent's camp. > >This is one kind of positional chess. > >My impression is that all modern chess engines are "as clueless as a newborn >baby" in such positions. Is that a fair assessment? > >If it is true that modern chess engines currently are not programmed to do the >kind of maneuvering described above, would it be difficult to do that >programming? Are there any "show stoppers"? > >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.