Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 11:52:30 05/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2003 at 13:58:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 31, 2003 at 12:56:04, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On May 31, 2003 at 12:00:06, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 2003 at 11:41:06, emerson tan wrote: >>> >>>>Will comp-comp become positional as computers become faster? >> >>[...] >> >>> It has also been said (something like): postional play is just another term for very deep tactics, more or less. This could fit to the play of engines when they search very deep. >> >>For my opinion this is not true at all. The problem is still to evaluate quiet >>positions only instead of positionally deescalated ones. You can have only a >>goal within tree evaluation which is visible as a leaf node. As I know evaluated >>leaf nodes today still ignore those dynamic positional aspects. The result is a >>tactically strong play with positional highlights only by luck. >Programs do not need to evaluate all positions correctly in order to choose >good positional moves. But if you are in search for a bottle with maximal content, then it is not sure for the one you will find also to have a good taste. >The point is that a positional advantage that they do not understand can be >translated to positional advantage that they understand when they do a deep >search. By which means ? Pure (poor) wish thinking ! Regards, Reinhard
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.