Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:48:58 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 14:28:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 10, 2003 at 12:23:38, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On February 10, 2003 at 09:38:16, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>I think humans often like to setup some kind of minefield, get into positions >>>where the opponent is under pressure and needs to be careful not to make a weak >>>move. It doesn't work with computers, they will calmly find a way through the >>>maze, and possibly come out on the other side in a better position. > >Let me for 1x give a school teacher. Always I give arguments and my posts are >longer than the patience of the readers, but here I make it short. > >This concept of maze is misunderstood. Of course maze works, only it depends on >the form of maze. > >Task for Monday: Waht is important against comps to make a maze successful? > > > > >> >>[...] >> >>>I generally would trust the evaluation of GM's more than computers, but having a >>>positional advantage and profitting from it is two different things, particular >>>against computers. > >Objection, please sit down! Pos. adv. is an objective fact and also valid agaist >comp, more, even more valid against comp!!! > >Rule 1: > >Pos. adv. per se is only relevant for GM and masters > >[Excercise: why is it irrelevant for submasters and patzers?] > > > > >> >>I like your example of a minefield. It's a good image for what I often think >>when I hear that "player X has a positional advantage". >> >>A position is either won, lost or drawn. That's it. A "better position" only >>exists in the area of "imperfect chess". > >Objection. Chess is imperfect! > > > > > > > >>It's not important how bad a position >>looks like or how many ways there are in order to "go wrong". > >Objection. Great nonsense! Pos. adv. is not because a position LOOKS good for >you. But beca >use, attention, a GM would tranform into a won position. Pos. adv. does NOT >mean, looks only good but in real it's equal. > >Exercise: Why GM has advantages in the exploitation of pos. adv.? > > > >>A position is won, >>if there's at least _one_ forced way to win and that's it. > > >Objection. Also this is a very sloppy statement. There is no way to prove the >one and only winning line. There is no chess of best moves. > >Law 1: A pos. better position remains better if a move could be found who is >better than equalizing, or in other words the move who preserves the adv! > > > > > > >>[...] > >>Now I'm not saying that computers play perfect chess, but it's known/common that >>in order to transform "a winning position" into "a won position" exact play is >>needed somewhere. That's typically the tactical blow which wins material. > >Objection: That is not false but it is not right. :) > >Law 2: In chess there is no objectivity. > >(There is only a state relative to the strength of the player. A GM needs less >advantage in a position to be called won.) > > > > >> >>The computers are getting stronger and are almost perfect-playing opponents when >>it comes to these tactical blows mentioned above. > > >Objection!!! A GM can win without that even a big tactical blow existed!!! > >Rule 2: Computers are no GM because they need tactical blows to win while GM are >much better because they need less advantages to win! It may be the only post of me in this thread because I do not think that there is a chance to get an agreement. It seems that you have a conception that say that computers cannot win without seeing something tactical. Computer can win games without a tactical error of the opponent by slowly increasing their positional advantage. Calculation of computers are not done only to win material and there are comp-comp games when the winner won thanks to increasing slowly the positional advantage. I do not think that GM's need less advantage than computers to win but I guess that we will not get an agreement about it. Uri
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.