Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:59:11 05/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1999 at 09:41:21, William H Rogers wrote: >I think that you have a mis-understanding about Stratgies and tactics. >For example: the siclilian defence, is a planed statgie that supposes to give >one side an advantage upon execution of its moves. I have never seen a chess >program that does not use opening books that could understand that kind of >thinking yet. >Tactics, on the other hand employees trying as many captures, and some center >control stratgies to gain control of the board. >Many people confuse the two, but without the stratgie of center control all that >would be left would be tactics and most programs would not play very well at >all. imho. >Bill I think that Paulo understand tactics and strategies very well. If a computer could exhaustively calculate 50 ply deep, had no opening book, and was allowed to play a variety of openings (as opposed to the one which gave the best score), it might play the Sicilian. From the human perspective (and where Paulo was coming from), it would appear that the computer was playing an extremely valid Sicilian strategy. In reality, it would be playing an extremely valid tactical game. However, the difference is that it's tactical game would be 50 ply exhaustively calculated. Since the depth of calculations would be beyond the scope of human understanding, it would appear (and this would be a perception) that the moves were strategic except in a few cases where some tactical element (i.e. a shorter set of moves the purpose of which could be understood by the human mind) would be evident. What Kasparov considers tactical, I might consider strategic since I do not have his depth of understanding of chess, nor can I calculate as deeply. When he makes a strategic move, it is because he understands that in similar positions, this type of move has been good in his experience and he does not see a tactical refutation of the move. This may be the crux of the point that Paulo was trying to get across. I have also mentioned that the difference between the two is in the mind of the beholder in the past. Take note of the subject of this thread. KarinsDad :)
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.