Author: David B Weller
Date: 14:49:44 08/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi, I am no chess player, but.... It seems to me, Chess is all about 'tactical negotiations of statistically proven metrics' If one engine's 'knowledge' is more extensive [ie., having more nitty-gritty info about small advantages/disadvantages] and another engine is faster [tactically] AND both have accurate 'knowledge' as far as each goes. Then one might choose a line leading to one position over another, because of more detailed knowledge of what it 'sees', but the other may choose still another position because, it 'sees' further. And if the first [positional] engine 'saw' what the [tactical] engine 'saw', it would whole heartedly agree! And I am not talking merely about material gains. If the the positional engine distinguishes one 'position from another by a matter of 'partially backward pawn', but the 'tactical engine 'sees' that an even greater difference lies a couple of ply ahead [eg., isolated pawn], then the 'tacical brute' is correct, even by the standards of the more elegant and refined positional player! The questions are: How much knowlegde? How many plys? Its a balance. Too much/little of iether is bad. Do shorter time controls favor tactical over positional? [ie, shift the balance slightly] Probably. Because after too long, the tactical engine wont get many plys deeper than the positional one, so they will be nearer in tactics but the positional will still have its advantage. at shorter time controls, the positional player is comparatively blind. IMHO Did I open a can of worms? :) -David
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.