Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:53:43 01/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 1999 at 15:53:56, Reynolds Takata wrote: [snip] >Many times that's exactly what happens. Worst of course meaning "Worst over >all". An example of what he was saying is say a true 2500 player is playing a >true 2400 strength player. The 2400 strength players though he doesn't >necessarily have equal tactical or positional strengths of the 2500 player can >often have memorized reams of analysis (and ideas!) in a particular opening. >The 2400 player gets an advantage because of that knowledge. He is also often >strong enough to convert the position to a win. He was just saying that players >stripped of opening knowledge would be on their own skills with out the help of >anyone elses analysis. You can argue with that if you want to, it's not my >statement. Though i do think it's a perfectly acceptable statement. OK, I get the proposition now (I'm a bit dense at times). Rote memorization of patterns verses the ability to recognize patterns on the fly seems to be the crux of the argument. I would argue that the point is valid, but either skill is equally valuable. In fact, to try an memorize every strategy for even a single opening past twenty moves takes more moxy than I'll ever have. Of course, I won't have great pattern recognition for a middle game fragment either. ;-)
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.