Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 16:48:59 03/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2002 at 19:05:17, Scott Gasch wrote: >>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. This is an interesting observation > >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. I agree. I am no doubt a weaker chess player than I was 10 years ago but my knowledge of chess is at least as good. Chess knowledge is of course different to chess playing ability. I am a better programmer than I was 10 years ago, and overall the balance adds up to being a better chess programmer. Of course there are other factors that are at least as important as programming ability and chess knowledge, testing methodology springs to mind. cheers, Peter > >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.