I think you misunderstood Vas. He wrote, "This version does emphasize static factors more than the default, this is one of the differences." That doesn't mean that Rybka 3 Human is more positional. By the way, please define positional. Your writing suggests that positional means less aggressive, while I think it instead emphasizes the technical chess aspects more. After all, when the technical aspects warrant, an attack is justified purely through static considerations.
Positions are either dynamic or static. Vas merely stated that Rybka 3 Human emphasizes the static factors more. What does that mean? It's possible that Vas meant that the Human version gives less value to dynamic factors (e.g. mobility and King safety) while thus giving more to static factors (e.g. space and pawn structure). As a result, a Dynamic version may elect to play for highly mobile pieces that merely shuffle back and forth while the Human version accumulates superior pawn structures and space, so it attacks more meaningfully. But, I'm only speculating since I'm a computer dummy. :)
That said, the Human version may indeed generally play less dynamically than the other two...but not necessarily. I think I read too that Vas and/or Larry speculate that the Human version may be the strongest one, but at longer time controls.
All the best,
> It's possible that Vas meant that the Human version gives less value to dynamic factors (e.g. mobility and King safety) while thus giving more to static factors (e.g. space and pawn structure).
Yes, exactly. This is one difference between Human and Default, although it's not the only difference.
Of course, we can debate what exactly "positional" means. I would say that emphasizing static factors relatively more is a big part of playing positionally.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill