position

[james uselton]

Do any chess engines play positionally?

[JuLieN]

All strong chess engines use the minimax search strategy. Very few use other methods, like trying to create plans (I know one exemple : Robin, in the 70ies). Minimax is only tactical, and thus all those engines are tactical monsters.

Now, deep tactics can produce the illusion of strategy. As a result, some chess engines have a nearly human style of play. My favorite one on this basis is Hiarcs, by Mark Uniacke. It is a commercial product.

The frontier between tactics and strategy is thin. One could argue that strategy is just deep tactics. My opinion is that as mankind can not calculate exhaustively up to fifteen plies like chess programs do, it created a set of rules to emulate its result, and that's what is called strategy. I bet many will desagree.

[Bill Rogers]

All chess engines try to play positionally but that is their weak point. All try to place men towards the center of the board. Human players are much better at positional playing.
Bill

[Marek Soszynski]

All strong chess engines use the minimax search strategy. Very few use other methods...

Which present engines don't use minimax? (Ideally UCI ones that support analysis/move now.)

[Ovyron]

If what others say is true, then I'd say playing positionally is like using your legs for running, while engines use wheels.

Can cars use legs for running? Why would they want to?

[GenoM]

My opinion is that as mankind can not calculate exhaustively up to fifteen plies like chess programs do, it created a set of rules to emulate its result, and that's what is called strategy. I bet many will desagree.

And many will agree.
I do agree

[Uri Blass]

All chess engines try to play positionally but that is their weak point. All try to place men towards the center of the board. Human players are much better at positional playing.
Bill

I disagree.
Today Rybka is better than humans not only in tactics but also in positional play.

I expect rybka to beat GM's even if they are allowed to take back every tactical error.

We can define tactical error as move that reduced the evaluation by at least a pawn based on a program with only material evaluation.

Uri

[rightrook]

[Event "ROBERT, Blitz:5'+3""]
[Site "Marlton"]
[Date "2008.07.12"]
[Round "1"]
[White "HIARCS 11.2 SP"]
[Black "Fritz 8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D26"]
[Annotator "0.39;0.12"]
[PlyCount "103"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]

{AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3800+ 2405 MHz W=12.8 ply; 136kN/s B=11.7 ply;
521kN/s} 1. Nf3 {Both last book move 0.01/1 0} d5 {0.12/12 10} 2. d4 {0.01/1 1}
Nf6 {0.12/12 15} 3. c4 {(e3) 0.01/1 1} dxc4 {0.03/11 9} 4. e3 {0.01/1 1} e6 {
0.00/11 13} 5. Bxc4 {0.01/1 0} c5 {0.22/11 14} 6. O-O {0.01/1 0} cxd4 {
0.22/11 19} 7. exd4 {(Nxd4) 0.01/1 1} Bd6 {0.12/11 9} 8. Nc3 {0.39/11 19} O-O {
0.22/11 0} 9. Bg5 {0.42/11 18} Nbd7 {(Nc6) 0.19/10 0} 10. Bd3 {(Re1) 0.48/11 17
} h6 {0.19/10 9} 11. Bd2 {(Bh4) 0.33/12 8} b6 {0.12/10 9} 12. Qc1 {
(Nb5) 0.34/11 0} Bb7 {-0.34/10 8} 13. Bxh6 {(Qd1) 0.34/11 4} gxh6 {-1.03/10 11}
14. Qxh6 {0.19/11 8} Re8 {-0.78/10 2} 15. Ng5 {(Qg5+) 0.15/10 13} Nf8 {
-0.78/10 13} 16. Rae1 {0.14/10 0} Qe7 {-0.78/8 9} 17. f4 {0.00/10 0} Rac8 {
-0.66/8 12} 18. Re5 {(Nce4) 1.87/10 0} Qd7 {(Red8) 1.34/7 9} 19. Qxf6 {
2.20/10 35} Bxe5 {1.56/12 0} 20. fxe5 {2.35/11 20} Qxd4+ {0.84/11 0} 21. Rf2 {
2.39/11 8} Qxd3 {(Rc7) 0.75/10 0} 22. Qxf7+ {2.71/9 12} Kh8 {0.47/11 1} 23.
Qxb7 {1.18/11 73} Nd7 {0.81/12 0} 24. g3 {1.22/10 8} Nxe5 {(Kg8) 0.00/10 12}
25. Nce4 {(Qxa7) 1.81/11 18} Rc1+ {(Qd7) 0.00/9 11} 26. Kg2 {2.12/10 0} Qd7 {
1.81/9 16} 27. Qxd7 {2.00/13 0} Nxd7 {1.97/10 4} 28. Rf7 {1.95/14 0} Ne5 {
(Rc2+) 1.97/10 6} 29. Rh7+ {1.90/10 8} Kg8 {1.87/11 0} 30. Nf6+ {1.90/11 6} Kf8
{1.87/11 0} 31. Nxe8 {1.90/11 8} Kxe8 {1.78/11 0} 32. Rxa7 {2.16/12 10} Rc2+ {
1.72/12 0} 33. Kh3 {2.10/14 7} Rxb2 {1.69/12 2} 34. Nxe6 {2.09/13 4} b5 {
(Nc6) 1.81/11 5} 35. g4 {2.36/11 12} Nc6 {(Rb4) 1.66/11 7} 36. Rb7 {
(Rc7) 2.50/10 5} Rxa2 {(b4) 1.56/11 7} 37. g5 {(Rxb5) 2.73/11 7} Ra7 {
1.62/11 10} 38. Rxb5 {2.89/12 0} Kf7 {1.97/11 10} 39. Nf4 {3.14/13 0} Ne7 {
(Nd4) 2.19/11 9} 40. Kg4 {3.18/14 7} Ng6 {2.56/12 2} 41. Rf5+ {3.68/15 4} Kg7 {
3.19/14 4} 42. Nxg6 {3.93/15 0} Kxg6 {3.16/13 3} 43. h4 {3.97/16 0} Ra4+ {
(Kh7) 3.44/13 6} 44. Rf4 {4.26/17 4} Ra1 {(Ra7) 3.62/13 2} 45. h5+ {4.25/14 5}
Kh7 {3.87/15 6} 46. Rf7+ {4.33/14 0} Kg8 {3.94/15 9} 47. Re7 {4.63/14 0} Ra4+ {
(Rg1+) 4.06/12 6} 48. Kf5 {4.64/12 7} Ra5+ {(Ra2) 4.81/13 4} 49. Kf6 {
(Re5) 4.96/14 7} Ra6+ {7.53/15 8} 50. Re6 {14.69/15 0} Ra8 {10.87/15 6} 51. g6
{19.82/18 0} Rf8+ {(Kh8) 20.34/13 7} 52. Kg5 {20.34/18 7} 1-0

-------------------------------

I was impressed by moves 12 and 13....
Hiarcs 11.2 sets up a good attack on the king side...

Qc1 followed by Bxh6.....etc.
wins for white...

This looks like an attack made by a human grandmaster...!



regards

Robert