the problem with these positions is that they are not very popular for posting replies here because they do not lend themselves well to correct replies by engines
they do not leave a "warm and fuzzy comfort feeling "that some of the other positions posted here do ,which are purely tactical in nature
so we see positions being posted that involve piece sacs and the engines see them in 12 seconds or 17 seconds..why even i can find the correct moves for some of them
Seriously though..i do think it is informative to show both types of positions..
the purely tactical which plays to the brute strength of today's engines running on powerful hardware
and the purely positional ..where we can see much progress can still be made by program authors today
Brute Force Regards
Steve
Thanks Steve,of course you are absolutely right....
I personaly think that the pure positional positions are more interesting than the tactical ones that can be solved for 12-20 seconds using your top chess engines running on a mediocre hardware....
The real challenge for me is these positional problems which expose the weakness of the current engines and help us and the programmers advance in this sticky area of the chess engines developement....
Particulary for this game,even the mighty Rybka 3 can't see the two moves made by Petrosian in a reasonable time....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
The real challenge for me is these positional problems which expose the weakness of the current engines and help us and the programmers advance in this sticky area of the chess engines developement....
in addition to being informative for engine development..
IMHO ..Positional problems are also more helpful in our understanding of the play of the game itself as humans then tactical positions are
you can see from some of the questions posted in your Petrosian threads ..some members have asked questions as to the reasons for a move..showing they have interest in the play of the game for their own understanding in addition to their engines understanding
Tactial positions dont help human understanding of The game as much..i think..because generally the winning tactical shot will be useful in only that position..although sometimes i guess the theme of the tactical shot can be added to the players memory for pattern recall and perhaps used again if a similar position is reached
still..personally i prefer positional positions
My Position Regards
Steve
Jim Logan wrote:Dr. Deeb - have we run out of positions already?
No,I am coming back....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Particulary for this game,even the mighty Rybka 3 can't see this move made by Petrosian in a reasonable time....
Tough positions,I promissed no trivial ones
even the top chess engines can't find this move,at least at a reasonable time....
Petrosian will fry your hardware
regards,
Wael Deeb
Petrosian - Boris Spassky, Moscow-Wch 1966
[d] q3rbk1/1b1n1ppp/2pppn2/1p6/3PP3/2PBBPN1/1PQN2PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1
