Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: The Limits of Positional Knowledge

Author: blass uri

Date: 15:20:43 11/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On November 23, 1999 at 15:40:20, Ratko V Tomic wrote:

>>>It has been said about chess than having any plan, even a bad one, is better
>>>than having no plan at all.
>> I disagree.
>> Sometimes there is no way to do progress in the position.
>> If you understand it you can draw the game by do nothing when the opponent
>> also cannot do nothing against you and if you try to attack you
>> create weaknesses and lose the game.
>It seems you are translating "plan" as "attack". A plan to create or maintain
>impregnable position, to anticipater and preempt any possible breaks or to set
>up traps should opponent try the break anyway, is all within concept "plan".
>Plan doesn't have to be a plan of attack and doesn't have to aim for the whole
>point either.
>In any case, any heuristic/didactic rule of this kind needs to be taken with a
>grain of salt. Which is why they're hard give to a program since programs lack
>the common sense to make a judgment about their common sense limits and
>recognize exceptions, all implicit in the human commnication of such rules.
>BTW, a while ago I had ran across some mathematical preprints from Israel on
>strategy games, with a name of one of the authors U. Blass. Was that you with
>the permuted first and last name?

It is me
Uri is my first name and I simply did a mistake when i registered ccc
and it was not important for me to fix it

I have two articles about games from the past

one is about the game nim from 1997 and another one is about the sprague-grundy
function for wythoff's games from 1990.


This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.