Author: gerard sanchez
Date: 06:40:31 05/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
Ha ha ha ! I actully didn't mean Chess Assistant 2 but Chess Strategy 2. I don't know it it was just one of those times when things just sticks to your head :) Gerard On May 24, 2001 at 23:59:27, Albert Silver wrote: >On May 24, 2001 at 19:07:18, gerard sanchez wrote: > >> >>I am beginning to think you are a salesman :) A very good salesman if you are >>lol > >:-) Yeah, I realized it could look that way, but really I think the idea is >good and it was really about the idea of training against the computer (subject >of the thread) in a methodical way. > >> >>Anyhow, where can I get Chess Assistant 2 > >2 or too? If 'too' then you can find it here at ICD. If Chess Assistant 2, then >no idea where you might find it. I think 2.1 was the last DOS version of it, but >why would you want it? Some old 386 lying around? :-) > > Albert > >> >> >> >> >>On May 24, 2001 at 17:09:45, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2001 at 15:10:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2001 at 13:17:37, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Uri >>>>> >>>>>I am glad to read your very optimistic posting. But frankly spoken I do not >>>>>think it will ever be possible for me to play on a 2400 ELO level against >>>>>humans. So my first aim is to obtain 2100 ELO and then ... time will tell. I am >>>>>however convinced that it is much easier to get 2200-2300 ELO vs computers. >>>>>Despite all endevaours the psychological factor vs humans is rather important. >>>>>And already the uncomfortable feeling that you are playing a 2300 ELO human >>>>>player may suffice to loose a game ... >>>>> >>>>>Kurt >>>> >>>>I believe that you only need to play more games against humans if you want to >>>>get 2100. >>>> >>>>The time that you need to get 2100 is dependent on the number of the games that >>>>you play. >>>> >>>>If you play 2 tournament games against humans every week and do not agree to a >>>>draw too early then I expect you to get more than 2100 in less than 6 monthes. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Play experience no doubt weighs significantly, but this brings to mind something >>>a snooker teacher was found of repeating: >>> >>>"The phrase 'practice makes perfect' is incomplete and therefore wrong. It >>>should be 'PROPER practice makes perfect'." >>> >>>Basically, it isn't about spending a lot of time at the activity, but how that >>>time is spent. Proper methodology is crucial if you are a very ambitious. >>> >>>Possibly my favourite learning/training program is Strategy 2.0, which includes >>>theory, exercises and actual guided practical play. Basically, it starts with >>>theoretical material explaining the lesson of the day (so to speak), then goes >>>on to exercises in which you have to find a key move or moves, the key here >>>being that they are most often positional moves, and finally come the practical >>>play against the computer. The key in this last part is that you have several >>>hundred chosen positions to choose from, illustrating the different lessons, for >>>you to train against the computer. So you practice against the computer, but the >>>practice is clearly directed to help you work on a certain aspect of your >>>understanding. So if I just studied weak squares, I would choose one of the >>>practice positions of Weak squares in which I start with a large advantage >>>because of a weak square in my opponent's position (or you could switch roles >>>and try to defend it) and play from there, trying to exploit my advantage. >>> >>>In essence, it is the next step that computers can take us to, beyond the >>>well-known: theory and exercises. Now it's theory, exercises, AND practice. >>>Sorry if this sounds like a plug, but if you don't know it, it's worth looking >>>at IMO. >>> >>> Albert
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.