Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 13:22:12 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 03:49:50, Harald Faber wrote: >On May 05, 1999 at 20:13:50, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>>Tactics and strategy go hand in hand. A tactical solution is not possible >>>without a sound position. >>>What we can say definitely is that in open positions tactics is more important >>>and more "available" than in closed positions where strategy is more important. >> >>Harald, I think that exists the good and the bad move(s), only >>that. > >Huh, this sounds easy but it isn't. >Who can differ between good moves and bad moves? And often there are several >equal good moves, -> candidate moves. To find the best move you have to >understand the position, a problem for all programs. >Funny is, like Ed already said, that programs often make one, two or more 4th >best moves but the human or opponent program fails to profit from it. Best are >ELO>2400-players in using such faults. >Another problem is to evaluate a position. I remember a case where one GM >favourites the white pieces while another GM favourites teh black pieces, same >position! So, if even GMs don't agree, how to tell a program what is right/good >and what isn't? > >Personally I don't like studies very much, they often contain an obvious won >position because of superior material or have positions which cannot be out of a >game. But sometimes, take a closer look at "Computer Schach und Spiele", there >are positions that are or can be out of a game. And they need the right IDEA to >the win/draw. In such cases you can see that programs, although search >extensions and depths far beyond the evil, FAIL in solving them. > >>I agree that strategy, as we know it, aid very to >>understand a closed position, but only because the human mind >>does not have the capacity of analyse with more depth a position of >>this type. > >Sorry, I don't unerstand this sentence. > >>That is valid also for the opened, semi-closed, etc. positions. >> >>Regards, >>Paulo Soares Harald, I agree with you, who can affirm which is the good move(s) in any position? Nowadays, nobody, therefore the human mind is limited, and the programs, that are elaborated by humans, do not reach great depths of analysis, exactly with much time for that analysis. But if you imagine a good program, that analyzes until depth 100 in tournamant level, a position that would be strategical, can start to be a tactical position, and more still, we will be next to the one that we can understand for good move(s). Here it's the basic point of the question, the human mind is what defines the limits between strategy and tactics, and those limits many times are confused. I believe that what I wrote above serves to explain the sentence that you did not understand. 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.