Author: blass uri
Date: 19:59:52 04/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 1999 at 21:50:39, James T. Walker wrote: >On April 06, 1999 at 20:57:19, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>On April 06, 1999 at 19:44:28, James T. Walker wrote: >Hello again Laurence, >Well here is what's in Bruce's post: > >"What it does is dependent upon how highly it regards pawn structure, occupation >and control of key squares, piece activity, material balance, etc." > >I think most of the top programs try to consider all these things when trying to >decide on a move. In that regard some are better than others at doing this. >Of course there is more included in the "etc". I think the point Bruce was >making is if you watched programs of 10-15 years ago you would have seen some >real "Lost Children". Programs used to move their king back an forth waiting >for the opponent to do something that would allow it to find a tactical move. >Most top programs today don't do that. They do look for small increases in >their "Positionl" score by improving the pawn structure or finding more active >squares for their pieces. I think some are better at this than others and >that's what the original post was asking. >Jim Walker Hello Jim, I think that the problem is that there is no one program that is best in understanding positions. Sometimes Hiarcs7 is better than Fritz5.32 or Junior5 in understanding positions and sometimes it is the opposite so it is not clear which program is best in positional understanding I understood that his is what Laurence tried to say. 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.