Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 10:08:22 07/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2001 at 11:28:29, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On July 25, 2001 at 02:55:59, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On July 24, 2001 at 19:07:34, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 2001 at 17:38:49, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On July 24, 2001 at 17:26:43, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>> >>>>>Pawn structure is just an illusion to compensate for lack of tactical foresight. >>>>> >>>>>Whata concept. >>>> >>>>I will answer to you with the words of GM Rhode: >>>> >>>>"Tactics are super important in general ,in fact the saying that chess is 99% >>>>tactics really is true . >>>>Most learning players make way too much about "this is the plan" or "i dont like >>>>this because of doubled pawns" when they really should be thinking, " if he does >>>>this, then what am i going to do ? >>>>The positional themes, like "control the center", develop your pieces, don't get >>>>a backward pawn are easy to learn and not a problem..." >>>> >>>>Regards >>> >>>Yes, and a human body is just 75% water, so physiology and some other areas >>>related to medicine are just only hidrodynamics. :-) >>>Saying "chess is 99% tactics" is a true statement but useless... >>> >>>Panno told us once that Najdorf was asked privately if he had any special plan >>>to play against Rossetto (at that time, a young dangerous tactician, probably GM >>>already). Najdorf said that it was ok, "I am not worse tactician than him, so >>>the positional understanding should make the difference". Najdorf was not a >>>phylosopher, he was a very practical player. >>>In computer chess terms, both were good searchers but Najdorf had >>>better evaluation at the tips :-) >>> >>>Positional understanding goes deeper than "doubled pawns" etc. Sometimes, >>>it is "if I trade this bishop, in this particular pawn structure it would be >>>better for me to keep the rooks and I will get a better endgame, like Capablanca >>>had in that game I read when I was a kid". This is the kind of knowledge that >>>some GMs have. So you calculate 10, 15 moves in advance, do not >>>see any danger in trading the bishops and then you get busted. >> >>That's the point , if you had calculate deep enough you should have seen that >>danger... > >No, my point is that there are things that you cannot foresee with calculation, >unless you calculate 80 plies. For instance, in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation >after Bxc6 white is already drooling with a won endgame. Of course, lots of >things are in between but this possibility determines a lot in the course of the >middlegame. Calculation is not the solution here! Calculation is the tool to >reach the position you want. >Besides, if chess is 99% tactics, computers should be 3500 elo by now. > >Regards, >Miguel Hi Miguel, You are perfectly right, infact they aren't still perfect since they can't calculate enough deeply like you said , 80 plies , so my claim was from a theoretical point of view : if they "could" calculate so deeply surely they shall be 3500 or more... Regards > > >> >>>Then you wonder >>>how lucky the GM was to get that endgame... >>> >>>Regards, >>>Miguel
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.