Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:33:53 06/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 1998 at 04:48:44, blass uri wrote: > >On June 02, 1998 at 21:31:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 02, 1998 at 18:51:26, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 02, 1998 at 12:54:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 02, 1998 at 11:22:58, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>good players do also other things >>> >>>>>2) if they do not see a forced line >>>>>(they have no time to check all the possibilities) >>>>>they can use a statistics to decide >>>>>if they see in a position that every line they analyze >>>>>leads to their win when they play against themselves >>>>>they decide to go to the position. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't believe human players do this. I personally analyze concrete >>>>variations when appropriate, and rely on intuition when it is not >>>>possible >>>>due to time constraints. Given the chance and the time, I'll analyze to >>>>reach a position I feel I can win. Given less time I'll resort to my >>>>intuition to recognize positions I should be able to win... and I will >>>>be wrong on occasion by doing so. That's one of the things that >>>>separates >>>>the GM from the IM and so forth. The GM's "intuition" is better. >>> >>>I do not do this because I cannot imagine clearly the final position >>>but I believe many correspondence players do it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I bet you do both... have you ever looked at any of the Win At Chess >>positions, or similar XXX to move and win positions? And you can find >>forced mates? That's all this is about. You *know* it is forced >>because >>you looked at all the alternatives... But in other positions, you >>search >>a move or two ahead, and say "I like this" or "I don't like this" and >>rely on intuition rather than concrete variations... > >I did not talk about positions with tactical forced lines. > >in correspondence game when there is a position I know I do not >understand and there is no forced line the best thing I can do is to >play against myself and if one side win to try to improve the defence >of the other side if I see that I cannot improve the defence >of the loser I decide to believe one side wins >I cannot be sure about it because I cannot check all the possibilties. > >practically in 2 hours per 40 moves I cannot do it because >I cannot imagine clearly the final position that can be 30 plies >after the move I play so I rely on intuition. > >of course there is a problem of time in 2 hours >per 40 moves but I believe if I could imagine clearly >the final position sometimes when it is important to know if I win or >lose some unclear position I would think a lot about one move >and use the idea of using statistics to decide. > >I believe grandmaster do it sometimes >for example in the following position I have in my book >(creative chess): >r1b2rk1/pppp1pp1/8/4pnB1/3n4/1BNP4/PPP2PP1/R3K2R >white to move >Gufled won by 14.Nd5 Nxb3 15.Nf6+ gxf6 16.Bxf6 Ng7 17.axb3 Re8 >18.g4 Re6 19.g5 b6 20.Ke2 e4 21.d4 e3 22.f3 d5 23.Rh4 Ba6+ 24.c4 dxc4 >25.Rah1. > >how did the grandmaster find 15.Nf6+? >I believe >he understood it is an unclear position >tried to play it against himself and did not find a good defence for >black >so he decided it is good for white. > > >Uri I wouldn't argue here at all. I've asked Roman, or Christiansen, or Lombardy, or Joel or whomever "why did you play that?" and often as not I get "because it "feels" right in this position"... So intuition is important. It is just that "their" intuition is much better than "our" intuition because they have so much more experience than we do...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.