Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 11:30:58 03/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2004 at 13:51:39, martin fierz wrote: >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 Yeah, actually the book was very good - but not for the reason Watson was hoping for. You roll your eyes once per page when the "it's all about calculation" comment inevitably comes up - and look at the games, conveniently organized by the basic patterns ... :-) Greets, Vas
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.