3 ms·
Well I agree with your first example. But would you call someone who wins a supposedly drawn endgame after 100 moves a tactical player or positional player? No
by jayparth 6y ago
Well I agree with your first example.
But would you call someone who wins a supposedly drawn endgame after 100 moves a tactical player or positional player? No one I know would claim that what happened on the 100th move was a tactic. It was 90+ moves of jockeying for position.
- ohyes 6y agoI'd call them a stubborn player. A human can't normally predict out 100 moves of optimal play, so that's why it is jockeying instead of being part of an intricate plan. I mean, it does bring the question, do you play a game for the experience or solely to win? I play games for the experience, the world's best chess player probably gets a thrill from being the best and winning. Obviously both experiences are legitimate and in competitive chess, studying historical games to learn patterns has always been a thing, so who's to say that studying scenarios 'solved' by a computer is really any different? Possibly there's a little less romance because a human didn't do it on their own? It doesn't appeal to me personally, but neither did studying chess moves. It really looks like a question of scale of preparation to me.