Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
syzygy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:03 pm
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
That is a good point. It is indeed quite likely that MCTS is much better at playing chess than AB when "perfect" knowledge is available (e.g. when using 32-men TBs to prevent playing a losing move, meaning that a choice has to be made from all drawing moves). Perhaps it should be used in "swindle mode" in 6- and 7-piece TB positions.
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tells me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Last edited by mwyoung on Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:13 pm
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
Educate me.
Take ten manuals and you will likely get ten different answers or permutations of an answer. The answer that follows is entirely IMHO, though is also the result of many talks with top players on the nature of chess.
At the top level, they are so intermingled it is impossible to separate, and the engines really aren't much different. The fundamental difference between the two really boils down to concept and approach. Both are anchored in pattern recognition for humans, with tactics really closer to meticulous calculation than anything. Positional play is pattern recognition aimed at deriving an evaluation of the position without calculation, understanding its weaknesses and strengths based on common characteristics/features and their interaction, and then seeking to improve your strengths or weaknesses. At its core, it is about piece and pawn placement while using tactics/calculation to realize or execute plans that attempt to improve them or prevent your opponent from doing this.
As to what level this takes place: very early. I would say you can argue positional play at its most basic starts from ground zero, but in practice, where it is done more consciously, I would say maybe 1500-1600 Elo. Needless to say, this will evolve and expand from the most general ideas such as 'development' (piece placement!), king safety (piece placement!), or simply fighting for the center and space (piece placement!), to far more subtle aspects which greater skill and understanding will allow the player to appreciate and leverage.
Again, my two cents.
Albert
Last edited by Albert Silver on Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.
Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.
Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!
The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.
Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!
The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...
2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....
"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"
I am still waiting.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.
Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!
The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...
2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....
"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"
Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:56 pm
So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.
Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.
So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.
I fully agree!
The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).
MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.
So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.
No.
Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.
I am still open to the question!
When does tactics end, and positional play began?
maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies
Educate me.
This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.
"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"
You need to do much better!
Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.
Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!
The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...
2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....
"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"
I am still waiting.
See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.
Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding of the SF 12" I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level master were confused.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.