Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:19:24 09/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 06:21:30, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 03:13:41, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 14, 2004 at 10:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>I didn't say "never". I said "in important games". That is pretty true. I >>>have asked this very question to three different GM players, all said that they >>>have specific favorite openings for important games/matches. >> >>i will ask my GM acquaintances.... >> >> >>>And all said they >>>do _not_ play every opening system, >> >>of course not *every* - that should be obvious. but most of them have a couple >>of different systems they play regularly, and the number of things they play >>usually gets broader towards the top - which is an indication that the very best >>players just might be the very best just because they can play all positions. >> > >I'd put it a little differently. The stronger you get, the more important the >objective evaluation is. If you're weak enough, maybe you should prefer a lost >middlegame to a won endgame, if that is your strength. Still, top players have >their strengths and weaknesses, just like everybody else. Take a game >Kasparov-Kramnik - does Kramnik have better chances in a Berlin, or a Najdorf? > >Vas IIRC the last time kramnik tried the berlin against kasparov, he got a sound beating :-) i know what you mean of course, but i believe very much that it is wise to play different openings (or to switch from one to another every 1-2 years) *as long as you are still trying to improve your game*. if you give up on that last point, and focus on results only, then it might well be a good idea to play one opening only. we have a whole flock of people here in zurich who take lessons with the same IM, and they all play the most boring queens-pawn-openings (1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c3!?). on a club player level that is just fine, and they are generally quite successful with their boring openings. however, with humans just as with computers, that is just "masking" your inability to come to grips with certain positions (e.g. the queen-pawn-borers are usually tactically weak), and if you want to improve, you should rather try to get comfortable in other positions too rather than trying to avoid them - you (or your program) will become a more all-round player which is never wrong... you can always go back to limiting your repertoire if it doesn't work out. cheers martin > >>>supply and demand. How many FM/IM players are there vs how many club players? >>>It is the market that drives this. Chessmaster is the best example. >> >>the market drives chessmaster. but does the market drive you/crafty? you have >>the luxury of not having to give in to the whims of the masses as you are >>independent of the commercial success of crafty (as there is no commercial >>intent). >> >>cheers >> martin
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.