Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 17:57:19 04/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 1999 at 19:44:28, James T. Walker wrote: >On April 06, 1999 at 19:03:21, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>On April 06, 1999 at 12:00:53, Keith Kitson wrote: >> >>>On April 06, 1999 at 00:47:21, Brian Smith wrote: >>> >>>>Any opinions on what program is best positionally and what has the best >>>>combination of tactical and positional skills against humans (I know this >>>>question is also in the REBEL poll, but the reults might (or might not) be >>>>influenced by the many REBEL owners at going to the site. >>>> >>>>Thanks >>>> >>>>(sorry if this has been discussed a millions times already... I guess I came >>>>late) >>> >>> >>>In my opinion Hiarcs7 wins hands down in this department. >>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. :) >>Laurence > > >Hello Laurence, >Just what do disagree with? The post concerns chess programs and which one is >best positionally or has the best combination of position/tactical play. It's >asking for opinions on this not whether programs can play equal to a >correspondence chess GM. I think most everyone agrees progams have not attained >that level of competence yet. In fact there is quite a lot of disagreement over >whether or not they even play GM level over the board. This still does not >preclude one being the best at positional play compared to others. Are you >saying there is no best one meaning they all play the same positionally?? >Jim Walker I agree with Bruce Moreland definition of what positional chess is about, and that's the reason why I believe there's no such thing as the best positional chess engine, however, some engines are better in identifing some key positional advantages than others, and such a knowledge is programmed by the programmer. That's to say that one engine may be strong in a particular chess position because it is able to play well in such position, however it may be weak another type of position where another engine may be stronger. So that's the reason why I don't think there's such a thing as the best positional engine, and also the chess engines are programmed to play better in open positions because they all excell in tactics rather then closed positions where they get lost and don't know what to do. Laurence
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.