Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 23:32:32 04/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2002 at 14:30:19, Roy Eassa wrote: >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.] I've always espoused playing chess first for enjoyment (no matter at what level your rating is). Those who don't study but thoroughly enjoy chess in their class (i.e. in a class tournament) may like their games as much as a professional in an elite tournament--even though the quality of play has a world of difference. Ahh! Quality of Life! The class tournament gives one a chance to play and win approx 50% of the games (or points)--a fun thing for chess lovers. The puzzles posed and solved in those ranks are suitable for your skill level, but the pleasure is just as much as when one master beats another. I've known some who would rather play in a higher rating section than necessary, rather than try to 'steal' an 'easy' prize. I've played 'up', and thoroughly enjoyed it (and sometimes succeeded beyond my initial imagination!). Most players play for the pleasure and satisfaction of the competitive games themselves, not for the money! They are more interested in challenging games, and earned rating increases, than easy dollars. Creativity (no matter at what level it is expressed), or solving a difficult (for you!) problem over the board, satisfies more deeply than spotting a hanging piece and capturing it with gusto and gaining 1 rating point. Sometimes you can't wait to face the club expert again, to get a chance for revenge--even if the prize is only a small club trophy, and even if he outrates you by 100 points. Ahh, the satisfaction of such revenge--how sweet it is! Especially if you can actually manage your game well enough, and ultimately outwit the opponent, that is, if he doesn't simply blunder away the game depriving you of your real dream to simply and definitively outplay him (overall)! When competition is tougher, the positions are more challenging and the opportunity more readily exists for me to find poetic beauty in the game & my moves...and in my own underlying ideas (the beauty of a chess move!). Finding combinations against weak players, who ignore or leave such possibilities for the higher rated players on a regular basis, is sometimes distasteful--no challenge, uggh! Not that you can't find a true brilliancy occasionally, even against the lower ranks of competitors. Brilliancy is relative to one's normal skills!--as far as how satisfying it may be to the player who found the combo. I want a real opponent, who keenly pits his own ideas against mine, and may the better player (in _that_ game) win! Then my own insight gets a lot of the credit for finding the brilliancy, seeing past his relatively sturdy defenses--it doesn't only depend on the opponent's errors. That's fulfillment! Not the mere winning of an easy $5000 against weaker players that you generally outclass by 100 pts average. Analogy--if you like to go fishing (you never know how big a fish you might catch!), and you take your pole, reel, line & home made lures (or self-caught or prepared bait) to the beach, you would not remotely consider picking up a large fish, lying on the sand, that had washed ashore in a storm, or due to illness, or was there after being recently cast to the ground by a prior angler. Truth is, you would not have caught the fish by yourself and would have no satifaction in bringing it home. Couldn't brag honestly, couldn't be proud of something you didn't really have to do--catch the thing yourself. Playing out a winning endgame because I have the basic technique is _boring_. I want the excitement of outwitting an enthusiastic opponent who will do everything in his power to prevent me from winning. The beauty in a move idea that leads to a forced, winning endgame (where mere technique is know to be enough to win) may be where the poetic beauty arises--but not in the mere conversion to a win by mere technique. I want an opponent who resigns (out of courtesy when he is dead lost, and out of respect for my abilities) when an endgame turns into 'mere' technique. That usually means playing in a section above my own rating. I'll often grant the same courtesy & respect when I am losing badly. Of course _I_ play out many endings until my opponent 'proves' to me that he understands the complete conversion technique. :) or can execute it accurately and swiftly within limited remaining time. :) Anyway, money is often at odds with enjoyment. The challenge itself is often the real driver--the money is secondary. This is as it should be by my view-- which advocates playing chess first (no matter what the level) for enjoyment. --Steve
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.