Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 16:15:37 04/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2004 at 15:41:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 19, 2004 at 13:49:15, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On April 19, 2004 at 13:33:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>It's losses are tactical losses only, not >>>"positional losses" which is not how a 1300 player (or 1500 player) actually >>>loses games... >> >>I'd think any game between <1900 ELO players is decided almost exclusively >>on tactics. >> >>Of course positional playing strength does matter, but it's not what >>decides games, usually. >> >>-- >>GCP > >That wasn't the point. You don't have a 1300 player that understands everything >about pawn structure but is tactically horrible. IE with a chess program, with >a reasonable evaluation, tactics have to be way beyond bad to offset the >positional evaluation. Then it just doesn't feel like playing a weak human, it >feels like playing something else entirely. "Human like" is tough - although many players like to play the weakened Crafty - not one of then has ever said it was like playing a human. Even weak humans may plan long term strategies and just come up short on tactics, weak computers are for the most part less tactictal wilth zilch long term planning - but it's hard to program to just the let queen (pick your piece) "hang". Weak human will generally not play knowingly playthe QxR and lose the exchange, but they will overlook the ocassional piece hanging.
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.