Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:56:47 05/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2003 at 14:52:30, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >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 ! It is often the case. It is impossible to beat GM's if you are unable to play good positional moves. 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.