Author: Don Dailey
Date: 21:40:41 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 22:57:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 18:21:40, Hristo wrote: > >>On June 14, 1998 at 14:45:32, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 1998 at 10:51:37, Don Dailey wrote: >>>>We could simply use this definition: >>>> >>>> Tactics: Things we can directly calculate. >>>> >>>> Positional: Things we must guess at. >>> >>>>- Don >>> >>>Strong chess players "calculate" positional stuff as good as tactical >>>stuff. >>>They can show with evidence and facts that the move was a positional >>>blunder. >>>You cannot call tactics SAVE and positonal things GUESSING. >>> >>>Positional stuff can be transformed into material. >>>Tactical advantage is material. >>>Positional stuff is material transformed in something else. >>> >>>Like Energy. Tactics is physic-laws on materia, positional is energy in >>>those processes. >>> >>>But tactics are not more accurate than positional. >>>Both are as accurate. >>>Thats what MY opinion is over the years studying people like Seirawan, >>>Bronstein, Kosashvili or Kohlweyer/Schaefer fighting against the machine >>>I operated, or i watched them killing the machine. >>> >>>How can you say a positional advantage is less real, just YOU are unable >>>to COUNT - better - bean-count - it accurate ! >>> >>>YOU are the problem. You cannot measure energy as good as measuring >>>mass. >>>Thats YOUR problem. Buy a new scales. >> >> >>Sir !!! >> >>I'm so glad to see this !!! >>I think you are absolutely correct about the mass-energy example in >>relation to the chess game. There is only one small "correction" or >>"adjustment" the mass and energy are interchangable, because the >>objective of the game determines the absolute "mass" of a position. >> >>Best Regards. >>Hristo > > > >this is all pure horse-hockey. A GM plays a move that is considered >"positional" for no better reason than he has seen that sort of "idea" >occur many times, and it either turned out bad, or turned out good. But >the "turn out" was tactical in nature. Same thing with generals >conducting >a war, or any other sort of "game" you can think of... The book "My >System" >has lots of neat positional concepts.. but they are all illustrated as >tactical things that are too far off to be understood. > >But the stuff about mass and energy is "hockey" (US slang for "crap") as >this is not the same thing at all. But a backward pawn isn't a weakness >if it can't be captured, and if defending it doesn't tie up too many >pieces >to create weaknesses elsewhere. I believe that *every* positional idea >is nothing more than long-range "intuitional" tactics... and the more >experience I have (or a GM has) the more he uses experience to help >avoid >tactics... and they *all* make mistakes as a result... I think horse hockey is just about the right word for this "mass-energy" nonsense. It sounds really cool but has no substance. - Don
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.