Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:31:19 04/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 1999 at 19:03:21, Laurence Chen wrote: >I would disagree with you. The only way I would agree if engine X is the best >positional chess engine is when it is able to defeat a CC GM in a CC or an >e-mail game. Games played in such conditions tend to produce highly positional >and strategic games in contrast to OTB games. Until such an engine is able to >defeat a CC GM in a match then I will believe. The human player will outplay the >chess engine, and it won't matter if you have the fastest hardware, nor how many >hours you leave the machine on pondering on the position. :) "Positional" ability in a chess program just has to do with what the program does when it can't kill you with a tactic. The program is sitting there thinking, and it can't win a pawn, it has to do something. What it does is dependent upon how highly it regards pawn structure, occupation and control of key squares, piece activity, material balance, etc. If you think that all they do is move around randomly then you've never seen a program that really does move around randomly. These things don't need to be CC GM's before we talk about this. Some programs are better in non-tactical positions than others, they may correctly identify a positional feature and take advantage of it long before a tactic appears. bruce
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.