Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 16:35:40 05/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1999 at 11:59:11, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) BINGO!!!(I learned this form of expression here, in the CCC). Karinsdad, you defined very well what I think. I remember that you already wrote about this subject, and this is the second time that I write about the same subject. Regards, Paulo Soares.
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.