Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 08:31:32 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 08:09:53, Mark Young wrote: >On July 09, 2001 at 06:40:20, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On July 09, 2001 at 02:46:04, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On July 08, 2001 at 19:37:21, Gordon Rattray wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Ok, what about Capablanca? He had great positional intuition and could often >>>>"feel" that a certain move was correct. This aided his calcuation and he became >>>>world champion. I still believe that chess is made up of many combined aspects, >>>>all of which are essential. >>> >>>“Feel” and "intuition" was also Capablanca’s Achilles heel. GM Alekhine Studying >>>GM Capablanca’s games for his match with the then world champ found that GM >>>Capablanca moves were good but not the best moves in many positions. GM Alekhine >>>discovered this by using his own brute calculating abilities. He used this >>>knowledge to defeat GM Capablanca and become World Champion himself. >>> >> >>Exactly. How can you be sure about a crucial move if you didn't calculate >>exactly all the variations coming in play. >>The "feeling" or "intuition" is an heuristic tool , and in that sense is prone >>to error. > >In many position you can't be sure using "feeling" and "intuition" alone. In how many chess positions can you be *sure* using calculation? Remember, we're talking in practice and not in theory. My argument is that many thinking techniques need to be used: calculation, postional evaluation, strategy, intuition, etc. The initial article stated that chess was *only* tactics. > >GM Alekhine realizing this played openings and positions against GM Capablanca >were "intuition" and "feeling" were not enough to determine the best move and >course of action, it took brute calculation, and that was GM Alekhine’s >strength. But do you think it was his only strength? Alekhine wasn't always able to calculate an attack to its end; I'm sure that even after siginificant calculation, in many positions he would have to use his positional judgement, etc. Do you know what a positional sacrifice is? It's a sacrifice where the outcome is not certain. It is played when a player "just knows" that it is going to work, but the complications are too much to calculate out exactly. Piece activity, king safety, etc. act as guidelines. Alekhine had this strength too. > >In a sense you can say GM Alekhine played an anti-Capablanca style of chess to >defeat his archrival. Do you realise that during the course of their playing careers Capablanca has a plus score against Alekhine? The were both great players, playing with different strengths/weaknesses. If chess was just tactics, Alekhine would have been more distinguished from Capablanca but this is not the case. Gordon > > >> >>Regards.
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.