Originally posted by orion25
I think this discussion is rather pointless
1-We all can safely agree that computers are not always right.
2-Computers have a high degree of correctness when the point is tacticall.
3-Tactics servers use computers to evaluate their positions and come up with a solution.
4-A small amount of these are faulty. They are removed.
Also:
wormwood doesnt ...[text shortened]... so do I
We all agree with this right? Then, can anyone tell me what the problem is, exactly?
1)wormwood accuses Richard of "lifting up" CTS problems and adding ambiguous continuations.
2)I correct him on that this is simply wrong, and ask for evidence.
3)Wormwood keeps going with no evidence whatsoever.
4)Richard comes and corrects him, asking for evidence again.
5)He still goes on with no evidence whatsoever.
6)heinzkat does the traditional anti engine trolling. ---edit:
allegedly 🙂.
7)marvellosity refutes him.
8)wormwood appears again and at least makes sense.
9)marvellosity makes more sense (in my opinion).
the only things that were worthy of discussion were
A)if tactics can involve more than 1 winning moves
B)the reliability of engine evaluations in tactical sequences.
my opinion:
A)simply, yes, and I find it more useful for improvement.
B)they are much more accurate and objective than human evaluations in tactical sequences. In 99.9% of cases of complaints in CT, it's just a matter of humans being able to comprehend them.
collect ALL positions where a human grandmaster has evaluated as "
clearly winning", and then collect ALL positions where toga has evaluated as 1.75 and let the
chess god play all games in both sets to the end. I don't have the slightest doubt that the latter would simply crush the former in percentage of games ending in mate. and since chess gods appear like twice in a century and when they're gone we're stuck with either humans or engines, I say go with engines.