@ubdip
I prefer the positional beauty that only humans can produce.
The king walk and triangulation is impressive tactical calculation (well, for a human it would be impressive).
Usually positional development will lead to a tactical opportunity presenting itself (unless both players understand the position equally well). It is simply the collapsing of the position.
If you consider the collapsing of the position to be the essence of chess, then it is understandable to admire chess computers.
But that is like only admiring the knock out blow in boxing. Is the essence of boxing in the knock out? It is not.
The essence of chess is not in the collapsing of the position either.
Chess computers are unable to play positional chess and that is why their "chess" is ugly. Was that engine vs engine game pretty positional chess`? It was not, it was full of ugly moves.
But I'm willing to agree to disagree.
I prefer the positional beauty that only humans can produce.
The king walk and triangulation is impressive tactical calculation (well, for a human it would be impressive).
Usually positional development will lead to a tactical opportunity presenting itself (unless both players understand the position equally well). It is simply the collapsing of the position.
If you consider the collapsing of the position to be the essence of chess, then it is understandable to admire chess computers.
But that is like only admiring the knock out blow in boxing. Is the essence of boxing in the knock out? It is not.
The essence of chess is not in the collapsing of the position either.
Chess computers are unable to play positional chess and that is why their "chess" is ugly. Was that engine vs engine game pretty positional chess`? It was not, it was full of ugly moves.
But I'm willing to agree to disagree.