Author: John Lowe
Date: 02:37:53 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 19:57:08, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 16:49:23, robert flesher wrote: > >>Without the opening knowledge that we all attain as we become better players the >>game is NO longer Chess it a matter of speaking. The computers must have the >>basic positions of all the major openings as these are time tested and proven to >>be sound in relative terms. I have stated that engines are tuned for certain >>positions, this is one of the strength's and should not be taken away from them. >>Its like asking, or telling Mikhail Tal he cannot sac.....//Botvinnik would have >>thanked us:)//...... there goes his strength, his edge!. If the concern is the >>rating?use the Nunn test positions where each engine gets a chance to evaluate a >>key, well known position. To watch computer's battle through the opening seems >>like a waste of time to me as they still lack the long term strategic >>understanding needed. The day i see a computer play the Marshall Gambit, Morra >>Gambit, or other genuine pawn sacks in the opening for positional play, or to >>get an edge, then i will change my mind. Cheers~ > >Chess programs are like a blind man with a cane. They can see everything within >the cane radius, but absolutely nothing beyond it. Nicely put Omid. Some of us dream of telling the blind man about the terrain and the weather etc by an exhaustive analysis of the type of game at ply 0. It takes 0 seconds and he knows whether to hurry on his journey or defend himself..etc...so to speak. John
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.