Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 11:30:19 04/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2002 at 13:52:13, Fernando Villegas wrote: >As other guy said, great ramble, pal! Now, Maybe it could interest you to know >that in some instances there is, in some people, not only no inclination to spot >after long work the weak poinst of computers, but all the contrary. I, in a high >degree, developped that contrary inclination in the 80's, when playing Ches >Champion Challenger, a 1700 or so machine. In those years to get one of those >machines was an expensive adventure and, at the same time, if you was a >relatively experienced player, you tended to be best player than the machine. >So, as much as you expended so much money for getting fun and it would >disappear if you get more than certain reasonable level of wins, my inclination >was not to spot and even more, not to memorize weakness that could become >evident in a game, but to forget them in oder to keep the fun. That perhaps >curious atitude developped in m all style of playing chess against computers. >Were they weak in opennings? Then I did not try to learn opennings in order to >compel mysef to examine the game from the beginning. Were they weak in endings? >The same thing in order to keep the fun. >In other words, this is just a variation of the universal perception that a game >is over if ever is solved. In my case, the fun is over if I get a tool to >overcome computers as a matter of act. For the same reason I am not interested >to learn nothing of the so called "anticomputer strategies" . My goal is to play >and think, because thinking is the pleasure. Specially if you think from zero. >Each game must be, for me, an entirely new event. >ell, just my experience. Now I return to my task to invent the wheel.... >My best >Fernando Last week a friend was about to play in a tournament in which he could win US $5000 for scoring better than the other players in his rating range. His rating had improved quickly to just below 1600. I'd been giving him advice for months on how to study so he could improve his results. He surprised my by declaring that he would rather use his own creativity than the knowledge of others. This was my reply (copied from my e-mail to him): "Ideas of others" or "knowledge"? You can make it sound bad or good, depending on what you call it! Most of what I was referring to --especially the endgame stuff -- is 100% proven. One last thought: "the more knowledge you already have, the more minutes of your ticking clock you can free up for creativity." (You can quote me on that.) There is a certain poetic beauty in using only your own raw talent -- no opening knowledge, no endgame knowledge, etc. -- to play a game of chess. (You DO need some knowledge just to know how to move the pieces, of course.) But IMHO this poetic beauty is strictly at odds with winning the maximimum most games. [My friend seemed certain that he would win the $5000. Alas, he scored only 3 points in 7 rounds.]
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.