4 ms·

I would not describe the moves dfan is talking about as tactical. Rather, they appear to exhibit a very different positional judgment from what humans use/diffe

I would not describe the moves dfan is talking about as tactical. Rather, they appear to exhibit a very different positional judgment from what humans use/different strategic aims. What you say sounds plausible, but I do not believe it is backed up by any analysis of the games.

stouset 10y ago
Positional play is nothing more than our human attempt to perform short-circuit evaluation of positions by using heuristics that are easier than calculating non-forced lines precisely to 20+ ply. If you imagine a perfect chess-playing computer, it would have no need of any sort of positional evaluation — literally every move it chooses would be based upon the pure tactical outcome of having evaluated every subsequent move in advance. When playing against humans, modern engines can accurately evaluate so much deeper than we can that their play is frequently indistinguishable from the purely tactical play of some such perfect computer (at least, once out of the opening, once the number of "good" moves is constrained a bit allowing computers to evaluate to significantly deeper ply). You say that computers exhibit a different positional judgment, which is true in the "technically correct" sense (their evaluation function is pretty much the literal definition of their positional judgment) but at depths of 25 ply, 30 ply, or even greater, the simple truth is that they are highly willing to enter lines where their king is exposed, they have pawns doubled, they trade away a good bishop and keep their bad bishop, or all of the above (all what we'd consider anti-positional play) just because they can see a concrete outcome (a won piece, a strong attack, etc.) that we can't. So yeah, by some definition they play positionally. But it's really by a definition that's only perhaps useful to other computers and not us humans; to us, it's significantly closer in practice to what we consider highly tactical play.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  dfan is talking about go. What you're saying is accurate about chess, but go programs aren't the same as chess programs.

stouset 10y ago

Positional play is nothing more than our human attempt to perform short-circuit evaluation of positions by using heuristics that are easier than calculating non-forced lines precisely to 20+ ply. If you imagine a perfect chess-playing computer, it would have no need of any sort of positional evaluation — literally every move it chooses would be based upon the pure tactical outcome of having evaluated every subsequent move in advance. When playing against humans, modern engines can accurately evaluate so much deeper than we can that their play is frequently indistinguishable from the purely tactical play of some such perfect computer (at least, once out of the opening, once the number of "good" moves is constrained a bit allowing computers to evaluate to significantly deeper ply). You say that computers exhibit a different positional judgment, which is true in the "technically correct" sense (their evaluation function is pretty much the literal definition of their positional judgment) but at depths of 25 ply, 30 ply, or even greater, the simple truth is that they are highly willing to enter lines where their king is exposed, they have pawns doubled, they trade away a good bishop and keep their bad bishop, or all of the above (all what we'd consider anti-positional play) just because they can see a concrete outcome (a won piece, a strong attack, etc.) that we can't. So yeah, by some definition they play positionally. But it's really by a definition that's only perhaps useful to other computers and not us humans; to us, it's significantly closer in practice to what we consider highly tactical play.

hyperpape 10y ago
dfan is talking about go. What you're saying is accurate about chess, but go programs aren't the same as chess programs.