Author: Larry S. Tamarkin
Date: 11:42:33 12/24/97
Go up one level in this thread
I have used the following chess playing Programs: Fritz (all versions), Genius, Mchess, HIARCS, The Chess Machine and Zarkov. I also use Chess Base for Windows and Chess Menter. I own a number of other chess playing programs. I was the most active player in the United States in 1983 with 495 rated chess games. At the time having no computers of any kind, I had my best over-the-board results, won quite a number of the (small) events that I played in and the following year gained a rating of 2316 for only a 1 month period. It was constant exposure to rated chess play and actually living in the chess club(The Chess Center of NY on W. 14th street in Manhattan, NY), that led to some serious improvent for me. I also 'hung out' with 3 super strong players on a regular basis which may have had a positive affect: My friend Mike Rohde, who is now a GM, Max Dlugy and David Goodman. Several years later, when my rating had already took a large plunge, I got into this computer software thing, and hopefully believed that using all these programs would really improve my chess greatly - Well guess what!, since 1991 when I started with this computer stuff, my rating has stagnated at around 2150, and I have come to the unfortaunate conclusion that all of these programs are totally useless for improvement! (at least for me!) Here is one other probable reason though; I also have a very large collection of chess books, some of them really outstanding, and some of which I used to even read! But have I read a chess book completely through from cover to cover since leaving the Chess Center? - I'm affraid not! Part of the reason is that these chess playing programs, databases and tutorial programs are too much fun (not to mention other computer related stuff), and their is just never enough time to get on a systematic study program with the books in front of a chess board. In my view, if one wants to improve consistently in chess, you have to do the following: 1. Study chess out of good chess books (from cover to cover, no skimping) for let's say 3 hours (amount of time is a negotiable item, but one has to be consistant!) a day. 2. Study out of a chess computer databases, and use playing programs for another 2/3 hours. use another 2 hours for studying chess from software tutors (like Chess Menter and the TASC chess Tutor) and you will definately make some progress! In addition to that, you must also 'get in' at least 1 rated tournament a week (on the Weekend would be good)against humans and you will have a fairly well-rounded chess study and improvement program. Excuses like having to work at a regular 40 hour a week job or having a life of any kind outside of chess (going to movies like Tatanic, is no excuse for skipping out on your chess study program!), will completely ruin your chances of progressing beyand a certain point if you are an ordinary human like my self. But if you are around 20 years old and you adopt a serious study regiman like I have out lined above, you will definately make some extroadinary (well at least ordinary) progress. Now I am 41 years old, I live in Seattle with my beautiful Fiancee Holly and I have a very boring regular job, which like most Americans I hate. Do I still dream of becoming a great chess player - you bet! - But I know, and face the unfortaunate realities of (my) life too. Lawrence S. Tamarkin the inkompetent chess software addict! On December 24, 1997 at 08:23:05, Bela Andrew Evans wrote: >I am curious if anyone in this group has improved his/her play >greatly with the aid of a chess program/computer. If so, what >methods did you use? I have Levy's book on Computer Chess, which >gives some brief tips for using the computer to improve in the >openings, middlegames, and endgames, and I'm wondering if others >have their own techniques. > >One common idea is to play tactical positions against the computer >(play to the computer's strength), and I would like to also ask if >others know of particular positions are type of position that might >be especially helpful. For example, I've heard that certain queen >and knight endings are extremely tactical, to the point where humans >would have a hard time playing a computer -- or perhaps you would >suggest some specially composed 3 queens + 4 knights + 1 rook bonaza, >or some such thing. Any ideas welcome! > >Bela
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.