Author: Scott Gasch
Date: 16:05:17 03/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
>And if you understand majorities, and weak squares, and endgame concepts like >split passers and weak pawns, then you are not going to be a _weak_ chess >player yourself, except for the lack of tactical skills commonly caused by >not playing enough OTB. I agree. I think too often people discount several authors as "weak". What they fail to understand is that you can be a "weak" author and still read chess literature / get chess ideas from stronger players. Personally I've read several books in order to improve my engine's evaluation function and opening book. The end result is a chessplayer who is weak tactically but can recognize winning motifs and important positional features. There is something to be said about having an true expert consult on your evaluation knowledge -- it's helpful, to a point. The problem with experts is they can always show you a counterexample and tend to focus on the exceptions rather than the rule. An expert programmer who knows the rules of chess can create a strong engine a lot more easily than an expert chessplayer who knows a how to program. Taking the engine from strong to very strong requires chess insight, true, but that can be gained in many ways, I find. Scott
This page took 0 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.