Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 12:11:44 01/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2001 at 14:05:31, Dana Turnmire wrote: I do not know the book you are refering to, but I would like to comment anyway! It is not the players in themself has been that much better to analyze the game of chess, its just the amount of knowledge is a lot larger. A player of today has an incredible amount of knowledge to build upon. Some opening(variation)s that was considered OK 20 years ago, has been proven bad in practical play. A lot of tallented players are trying to improve their chess and comes up with new ideas all the time. That is what have made chess improve through the years. But for me and you, your opening book is probably OK. If you really want to improve your game, the most important thing is to find out where you go wrong. Then you just have to sit down and work with your games.(Most important are the lost ones) Not only in the opening, but also in the mid and endgame. You will probably find things to improve in your chess. And if you find your opening book wrong, just make a note of it! A chess program can a be a great tool for this. After going through your game yourself, use your chessprogram. I have found that even in the games where I won by what I considered great play, I made a lot tactictical mistakes. (My oponents obviously made the last big mistake in the game....) The results of programs playing from positions given in opening books do not prove much I think. But if someone will play one program with an opening book made from moves in"Chess Openings Theory & Practice" and another played with the most up to date opening lines, I feel the outcome would favour the new book quite a lot. Torstein > I used to play in a few tournaments though not active now and always used I.A. >Horowitz's book "Chess Openings Theory & Practice" as my "opening bible" when >preparing for tournaments (I'm just a club player). I was contantly told that >it was outdated and practically ANY opening manual was outdated in a short >period of time because opening theory was constantly changing. > I recently went out and bought a copy of MCO 14 to test it side by side with >my old standby. I have CM 8000 on an AMD k6-2/500 64 RAM. I took ten opening >variations from the Ruy Lopez section in both books and used only the variations >in which White had a "clear advantage" (a plus sign over one minus sign). I >then let CM 8000 play out the game. > RESULTS: In Chess openings Theory and Practice White had 7 wins 2 draws and 1 >loss. MCO 14 had 5 wins 3 draws and 2 losses. > Is a strong master today any more capable of analyzing an opening position any >better than a strong master 37 years ago? It doesn't seem to be the case. > I always liked the layout of "Chess Openings Theory and Practice" better than >the modern counterparts. Is there any possibility it can be updated with >algebraic notation in the future? Would anyone like to try this challenge with >NCO, ECO or any other highly regarded openings manual?
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.