Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:58:09 05/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1999 at 05:43:22, Paulo Soares wrote: >We spoke a lot on: strategy, tactics, positional programs, tactical programs, >etc. I think that difference doesn't exist between strategy and tactics. I >think too that chemistry and physics are the same tingh. It would being crazy? >I believe that, as it is spoken in Brazil, " Of doctor and crazy we everybody >has a little " (this sentence is funny in the Portuguese language, because the >rhyme exists). Hola Paulo, in Spanish it is: "de médico, poeta y loco, todos tenemos un poco". > Leaving the madness sideways (or continuing with it), I believe >that to separate a subject to be studied by parts, only makes sense in view of >the limitation of the human mind, that needs references for best to understand >the things. I am not writing that with the purpose of ending with our >references, because we needed them, after all we have a limited mind. The one >that we needed to understand is that they are just references, and not absolute >things, that is to say, points exists in that won't get to distinguish among >physics and chemistry, strategy and tactics, etc, etc, etc. Pachman, in one of his books, defines strategy as "what to do" and tactics as "how to do it". I think this definition only applies to human chess players, and not to computers. >Chess Tiger is known as a tactical program, I found very interesting and funny >this sentence of Christophe Theron, that expresses well that I think: "Chess >Tiger is a knowledge based program. The purpose of anything I put in it is >to understand chess better and to win more games. That's why it's knowledge >based." > Then most competitive chess programs are knowledge based. >Regards, > >Paulo Soares, from Brazil
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.