Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:30:57 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 07:13:21, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 06:19:01, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I do not have the impression that weak players use the chess computer method. >>They have enough time at tournament time control to do 1 ply search and 1 ply >>search after the move that they plan to play but they do not do it and a common >>mistake of amatuers is not to play a move simply because they did not analyze it >>or to lose material or to do a positional mistake because they did not consider >>the opponent reply even for one second. >> > > >You should really read the article, if you didn't already. The way Graham tells >it is a one line synopsis of an article, which is a synopsis of a research >project. That's logical. > >The comparison lies not so much in raw calculating, but in the necessity of >*assessing* each chess position from ground zero. > >The extensive use of their memory sets strong chess players up to constantly >recall both the current situation as well as the development of the position, >leading to pattern recognition, and better results. With this they can -based on >the position characteristics- develop a plan and the candidate moves much more >easily. > >As the weak chess player lacks this level of pattern recoginition, he has to >assess the position a bit like a basic chess program does: start crunching all >move sequences. >For a computer program this still can result in very strong play - because of >node speed - but as the human brain hasn't got the ability to not only tune up >to that speed, but store and retrieve the analysis tree in a useful manner, the >*weak* player will oversee even the most simple countermoves of the opponent. > >Basically the research seems to indicate that *memory* is very important, and >the lack of it leads to more basic and flawed methods of calculation, *not* that >the strong player thinks like a human and the weak like a computer. > >Nothing new under the sun, as these results confirm earlier research. >And we all *know* that, as we play the same. >Well know fact is that drilling with (simple) tactical combinations makes you >aware of the possibilities of recognizing them in real play. > >I am *not* a strong chess player, but with my training and after-game analysis >I'm always looking almost *automatically* for these positional characteristics. > >Just a few days ago I have been looking at numerous games with the sicilian in >the ECO B50's range, as I have good results with those opening as black, but >very often am stuck with a weak pawn on d6. >I kick my opening books aside and specifically tried to identify the >*characteristics* of games in which black won the game, although the d6 pawn (as >a plus pawn for white) was nicked off the board. > >Not looking for a 'move sequence' how to solve it, but characteristics of piece >placement and strong and weak points. A basic chess program won't do that, as >well as a weak chess player. I agree that recognizing patterns is importnat but calculating is also important and I believe that training in 1 ply searches can help most of the players including the GM's to play better. 1 ply searches are not going to help in most of the cases to get a new idea but one case when it helps to get a new idea can help to get get a better result. Uri
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.