Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 08:11:53 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 19:37:12, stuart taylor wrote: >I've also often wondered if even GM annotators know exactly what they're talking >about, or put things in the right perspective. So you agree it seems! > So, there are some games which are so deep searchwise that it is still not easy >to check out all variations, even with a top computer. > So in such games, you would be claiming that it is great human searching >faculty at work, basically. > >Anyway, the big question now is, what is the value of many GM written chess >books? All they can speak about is not-so-important things, and not very >provable things. All they do is to illustrate with a game in which the final >result is winning, when that knowledge is used, but it may not be BECAUSE of >that! >S.Taylor I agree that many tactical annotations by GMs have errors in them. Probably "most" do. I think any GM annotating any game since the early '90s is *negligent* if he does not use a computer to assist with the tactics. The combination of a fast computer, strong program, and a GM spending the necessary time will, IMHO, produce the best annotations.
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.