Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:34:50 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 09:45:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 10, 2004 at 08:48:34, martin fierz wrote: > >>On May 10, 2004 at 08:11:34, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On May 10, 2004 at 07:33:38, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>there are instances where pushing pawns in front of your king is ok. there are >>>>others where it's not ok. they are rather easy to distinguish most of the time >>>>(some simple rules are sufficient for this) and i'm surprised that you don't >>>>understand that it's not such a great idea here... >>> >>>Rules of thumb are good but not great, there are always exceptions and computers >>>are experts at finding them. It is possible that all other moves simply lose >>>faster. >> >>if you read the entire thread you would see the issue is not the move ...g5 at >>all. as has been said before, but you obviously didn't read, kasparov himself >>said that ...g5 was necessary to keep black in the game. >>the point i was trying to make is that if black has to resort to such moves, it >>is clear he did something wrong *before*. >> >>>>i know you are a born >>>>skeptic, but perhaps you should learn to trust people with more experience >>>>sometimes :-) >>> >>>Sometimes, but maybe not this time ;) >>>Just look at the thread below >>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?364474 >> >>this is totally irrelevant. you have to distinguish between concrete analysis, >>where there can always be mistakes by humans, and general assessments, such as >>"if black has to play ....g5 here he's in bad shape". the second is true unless >>disproved by a concrete variation which doesn't seem to exist here. > >general assessment can also be wrong. >general assessment is result of experience and it is possible that the >experience is misleading because the position that you look at is slightly >different than the positions that your experience is based on them and the >difference may mean that instead of having bad position you have better >position. nah, i don't think so :-) there are sharp positions, where your general gut feeling can be way off because it's all about tactics. in quiet positions you can trust a GM eval. i know you don't do that of course :-) i'm also just a patzer, but at least i had enough common sense to listen to what stronger players say about chess, and to learn from that. if all i had ever done was to say "no" and "i don't believe you" and "i do not trust your evaluation" instead of learning from my peers, i would also have been stuck with a 2000 rating. cheers martin > >I think that you need concrete lines also when you talk about positional >evaluation. > >Of course in case of positional evaluation you cannot have a forced line but you >can have some logical lines that demonstrates that white get the advantage. > >Uri
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.