My position was that positional play was a short cut for tactics. Ideas like "rooks on the 7th" or "isolated pawns are weak" came about to head players in a tactical direction, and if we could calculate deep enough, then we wouldn't need those rules, as it would all be tactics.
Doc Beveridge took the view that tactics only happen due to a positional defect in a players game, and if you played positionally "correct" then tactics wouldn't work.
Now it may seem that we are both arguing for the same conclusion , but clearly there is some way to go before we can play "perfect" chess.
Interestingly enough this debate is also happening in the world of computer chess. For a long time the "tactical monsters" have held sway. Programs that searched deeper simply defeated other programs by winning material through seeing more. But the developers of Rybka, which won this years World Computer Championship with 10/11 argue that positional knowledge is far more important than most programmers give it credit for.
As evidence they refer to the following win by Rybka over Diep in this years championship. While the opening, and the whole game is tactically based, it is Rybka's 22nd and 27th moves that are the key to victory.
Rybka (Computer) - Diep (Computer) [B43]
15th World Computer Chess Championship Amsterdam, The Netherlands (9), 17.06.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 d6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Be3 Bb7 9.f4 Nbd7 10.a3 Qc7 11.Qf3 Be7 12.Rae1 Nc5 13.Bf2 d5 14.e5 Nfe4 15.f5 Nd2 16.Qg4 g6 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Ncxb5 Qd7 19.Nd6+ Bxd6 20.exd6 0-0 21.Bxg6 hxg6 (D) 22.Nf3 Nxf1 23.Bxc5 Bc8 24.Ne5 Qg7 25.d7 Bxd7 26.Nxd7 Qxd7 27.Bd4 Rf7 28.Qxg6+ Rg7 29.Bxg7 Qxg7 1-0
An annotated copy of this game, with comments from the Rybka development team can be found in the article on chessvibes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment