In fact if you have ever red Stockfish's code you can see they take a lot of positional stuff in mind when evaluating a position.
Engines are improving, but their evaluation is still inferior to that of a strong human player. But their calculation ability more than makes up the difference.
However, that's why centaur chess is still meaningful. A strong human player with a solid positional understanding still has something to contribute that the engine lacks.
I know engines still lack soem positional stuff and I think they will always lack it, unless they learn how to think.
However it is pretty amazing to see all the positional stuff engines take into consideration, and a lot of them are kind of subjective.
For example, Stockfish has a value called "King security", and I have always wondered how the heck does an engine can possibly evaluate that.
I know engines still lack soem positional stuff and I think they will always lack it, unless they learn how to think.
However it is pretty amazing to see all the positional stuff engines take into consideration, and a lot of them are kind of subjective.
For example, Stockfish has a value called "King security", and I have always wondered how the heck does an engine can possibly evaluate that.
Here's a page that describes the basic idea and the approach several different engines take: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/King+Safety.
You need to be a freaking god to even notice engine's weaknesses in the endgame, appart from thinking a wrong colored bishop + pawn is winning.
I beg to differ on that, BP. If you go through my game and consider some of Level 7's choices in the endgame I think you'll be surprised how poor (by the standards of a human playing at Level 7) they actually were.
Are you trolling me? Computer level 7 is programmed not to play its best. Im talking about Stockfish on his full power, not about a tweaked engine.
No, I'm not trolling you. Relax. I simply misread your post. I hope you can see that I wrote my original post after decades away from chess in search of some enlightenment, a little of which this thread has provided. I understand that Computer Level 7 may be programmed not to play its best but still feel that there is a considerable mismatch between its performance in the middle game and its play in the endgame. I suggested that what I found might be because there hadn't been many advances in computer endgame programming, or that these hadn't trickled down to the likes of Level 7. I've had some interesting responses including yours. You may, however, wish to review whatever your current medication is or consider counseling, as you seem, elsewhere on this forum as well as on this thread, to have some anger management issues that might usefully be addressed.
In fact if you have ever red Stockfish's code you can see they take a lot of positional stuff in mind when evaluating a position.