Author: martin fierz
Date: 10:51:39 03/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2004 at 09:12:44, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >One was that only top-level players should study the games of Kasparov. The >reason was that Kasparov doesn't plan, he doesn't play normal proper chess, he >doesn't look at patterns, he breaks all of the "rules" - and he can do so >because he counts everything (or prepares it at home). > >Another interesting claim was about Watson's book "Secrets of Modern Chess >Strategy", where Watson claims that basically there are no such things as chess >rules, chess patterns - it's all just a big myth, used to explain things we >don't understand, and that concrete counting is everything. Kaidanov claims >that, like studying Kasparov, the book is totally inappropriate for all but the >best players. Weak players should generalize, play stereotyped chess, etc - but >only because they can't count. it's nice to see that a strong player reacts this way to watson's book :-) i found the book very interesting and thought-provoking, but i thought about the same as you did: the first thing people have to learn are the general rules, and then, if they get really really good (IM or GM), they have to learn the exceptions to the rules. but for mere mortals a couple of dogmatic rules are like beacons in the sea of variations, and of great help. cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.