Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:14:45 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. What about improving the engine's search rules. everybody here think that being a better chess player may be important for better evaluation when I think that the main advantage of good players is better search rules. The chess books usually do not teach people which lines to search and I do not know about a book that tries to teach tactics by questions that are not about solving tactics but about which node to search next. A gm may try to write the tree that he thinks about in many positions and try to find from the tree rules which lines to extend and which lines to prune. Uri
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.