Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:35:40 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 06:54:48, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 09, 2001 at 06:28:52, martin fierz wrote: > >> >>you are missing something in my opinion: rohde states 'most learning players'... >>i have been involved in chess teaching too, and i have been teaching my kids >>about plans and positional chess etc, and at the end of the course you have them >>play a tournament and they all hang pieces like mad. we changed our curriculum >>after that... >>i sincerely believe that *by far* the best method for any player below 2000 to >>improve is to study tactics, nothing else. at higher levels, the emphasis should >>shift again towards more positional understanding, endgame and opening knowledge >>etc. >>unfortunately rohde is not qualifying his advice - what is a 'learning player'? >> >>cheers >> martin > >I think that he meant in any case to stress the general importance of tactics, >in fact if we read the following answers : > ><snip> >WindomEarle: i have seen improvement in my game from systematic study of >tactics, by solving mate problems, as you mentioned, but how can i >systematically learn to calculate quiet moves? that's what really gives me >trouble. >chessADM: (Just a reminder, if you want to ask GM Rohde a question, just type >"?". I'll see it and add you to the speakers list.) >rohde: Aside from calculation, there is evaluation. Lev Alburt's system is to >assign numeric values (like a computer) to a position, like for example, a >position might be "60-40" in favor of White >rohde: then a good move will keep the position 60-40 >rohde: so when he is calculating quiet moves, if at the end of the calculation >he cannot reach a 60-40 evaluation, then either he is thinking about the wrong >moves, or the position was not 60-40 to start with >rohde: so you have to combine calculation with evaluation and compare the >evalutation after the possible moves >rohde: this is why computers are becoming stronger - the quicker comparison of >the evalutations >rohde: the most important thing is to examine the various candidate moves so you >dont miss the best moves >chessADM: And how do you find those? >rohde: even with all this, tactics is still much more important than "positional >chess" >rohde: everything starts with your opponents last move >rohde: why did he do it, is he threatening anything >rohde: if he is, how do you repond to threat, or do you have any counterthreats >that might make send >rohde: once you know why he made his last move (even if you have concluded that >it was pointless) then you can develop a list of candidate moves >rohde: this mechanical process is very helpful, probably one of the most >important thinking tools ><snip> i still think that he is giving advice especially for beginners here. e.g. these last few lines of advice are automatic for me, and i would say they are automatic for every player above 2000. i don't want to say tactics is not important! in fact, in 3 days the swiss championship starts and one of the things i'm doing as preparation is solving chess puzzles :-) i just think that for weak players (and i mean anything below 1800) positional knowledge is close to useless because on that level there are much too many blunders. for stronger players it gets more important - i am constantly outplayed positionally when i play against grandmasters. if i want to compete with such players, i need more positional knowledge. a common misconception about titled players is that they can calculate incredibly well. of course they can also calculate well, but what separates a GM or an IM from 2200-2300 players is mostly a deeper understanding of the position. when playing against GMs i don't usually lose because i miss some tactics - i lose because they outplay me from the opening on and at some point my position is just so bad that it collapses tactically. computers are so strong tactically that they can afford to play a few positionally weak moves and not get punished, because the human would have to play very accurately to punish it - and most humans (even GMs) can't do that. 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.