Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:22:50 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 09:53:15, Uri Blass wrote: >>>Many years ago people could not use computers to train and today they can do it >>>so it is logical to believe that players of today can be better not because they >>>are more intelligent but because they have more options to train. >> >>It's only logical if you believe that inborn talents or genius could be made >>even better with training. But this is false. > >How do you know it? > >I believe in it and I see no reason to change my mind because I have no evidence >that Fisher could not play better with better training methods. > > >Uri But you do have evidence that Fischer was the best at his time, right? ;) And the Soviets had no compensation although they had the superior training system plus the so-called team "spirit". Why should they equalize when both sides have computers? I give you a new idea that should be worthwhile to consider. Uri, all the actual comp stuff is basically a lot of fun and of help for sub-masters. Real masters do also use it but more for collecting data. But NOT because they could better understand chess. That is something lay do not understand. To become a master you must make your own analyses. And you must show your strength OTB! That is the most important. You must never confuse cleverness due to well collected data and creative play. How often must I repeat that learning a language is mostly passive. But to master it would require active talents. The same at chess. Rolf Tueschen
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.