Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 17:36:04 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 17:27:52, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>On December 29, 2001 at 14:09:37, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>
>>On December 29, 2001 at 04:24:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>>
>>>On December 28, 2001 at 23:51:33, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 28, 2001 at 21:57:03, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is rather well established by now that human players are, like
>>>>>computers, studying a chess tree, trying to find the best possible continuation.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, not. That is the vicious influence from Kotov's teaching that
>>>>made everybody think that they should think like a tree.
>>>>There are recently two books that finally made in writing what everybody
>>>>suspected. "Improve your Chess Now" by J. Tisdall and "Secrets of Practical
>>>>Chess". Not even amateurs are taught NOT to think like a tree nowadays, and the
>>>>best book about it is "How to reasess your Chess" by J. Silman.
>>>>
>>>>First quote from Tisdall's book, first Chapter ("The Fabled Tree of Analysis"):
>>>>
>>>>"I do not think like a tree - do you think like a tree?" GM Anatoly Lein.
>>>>
>>>>There are certain situations where a strong player think like a tree, but
>>>>their thinking should certainly not be characterized by that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Taking as an example Kasparov, he is renowned for his powerful calculations
>>>capabilities of the variations (...tree), both in analysis and both in OTB.
>>
>>Which does not mean that he calculate every move like a tree. BTWA, he is more
>>renowned for this tactical vision, I think.
>>
>
>A recent book "The Inner Game of Chess : How to Calculate and Win" by Andrew
>Soltis clarifies and improves Kotov's suggested calculation techniques.
>
>Soltis makes a convincing case that chess is not 99% tactics, an often used
>phrase ... but rather 99% calculation.
Calculation does not mean "calculating as a tree", and that is the modern (last
3-4 years) vision of the problem.
>>>>>Their way of searching this tree is probably very different of the way current
>>>>>alpha-beta algorithms do it, but still they are studying a tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>The NPS idea is based just on this fact: in a tree you have nodes, and after a
>>>>>while you have visited a number of nodes, so you can compute a "NPS".
>>>>
>>>>It is possible that in an endgame, you can be staring at the position for 10
>>>>minutes and make a very strong move without calculating like a tree a single
>>>>move, based only on general considerations and _retrograde_ analysis or a goal
>>>>seeking approach. Once you find the plan, everything falls into place.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually without calculating, your plan can fail miserably after few moves, but
>>>in that case we say that the player used an "heuristic" approach dictated by
>>>his/her intuition or from a "pattern recognition" process that helps to prune
>>>the tree and speedup the move choice, but as I said , it's prone to error
>>>without the methodical verification of the calculus.
>>
>>You say "helps to prune the tree" because you assume there is a tree. Sometimes,
>>the whole tree is "replaced" by another approach. You mention intuition, many
>>times it is not intuition, but rather there is a solid logic analysis of the
>>situation that does not involve a tree.
>>
>
>The tree is the structure commonly used in the calculus of the variations, but
>you can see also it as "what if he moves that, and I move that...and so on",
>like a branch of that tree.
The tree is not the commonly used. That is what you use to explain it, but
that is not how it works during the game. That vision is what Kotov wanted us
all to believe.
>>How do you think that strong players play bullet? they could play dozens of
>>moves without analying any of them. Just pattern, knowledge and reflexes.
>>Once in a while they stop one second to quicly calculate something.
>>
>
>That's why bullet chess is the "blunder" fair, not a serious chess discipline
>for the purist of this "noble art".
It is no serious, but strong players can do it and beat the hell out of many
mortals. Simuls are another example, one look and a GM comes with a strong
attacking move. No tree.
>>Regarding errors, it is the opposite, look at this quote:
>>"Tactical analysis is an error-prone activity. Overlooking one important finesse
>>can completely change the result of the analysis. If it is possible to decide on
>>your move on purely positional considerations then you should do so; it is
>>quicker and more reliable. There are of course many positions in which concrete
>>analysis is essential, but even in these cases you should not analyse specific
>>variations more than necessary." GM J. Nunn in "Secrets of Practical Chess" pp
>>21.
>
>I'm not in agreement with the Nunn's vision, since the only positional
>considerations aren't sufficients to avoid a tactical strike back from your
>adversary, remember the quote above ? It's from Teichmann.
Of course you use tactics, sometimes, not always in the form of a tree. Nunn
also showed tactical examples that you do not
solve with a tree ("unless you are a computer" he says) but rather with
a goal seeking approach. I have to do this? How can I do it?. That is
extremely common in strong players.
The discussion is not tactics vs. strategy. But, how are tactics developed
in the human brain of a strong player? as a tree? I do no think so.
Regards,
Miguel
>In case you do not have Reuben Fine's "Chess Marches On" I will give you
>what Fine said about, Strategy and Tactics:
>"Thirty years ago Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics. And despite the
>enormous strides of chess theory since then, his percentage can only be reduced
>a few points".
>
>Many amateurs think that master games are usually decided by some deeply-laid
>plan , that is what they conceive the grand strategy of tournaments to be.
>
>Actually, however, strategical considerations, while quite important, do not
>cover a range or depth at all comparable to the popular notion.
>
>And it is still true that most games, even between the greatest of the great,
>are decided by tactics or combinations which have little or nothing to do with
>the fundamental structure of the game.
>
>To take one striking example, look at the games of the Euwe-Alekhine
>matches.
>
>Euwe is a player who analyzes openings ad infinitum, i.e., one who wants to
>settle everything strategically, Alekhine is likewise adept at the art of
>building up an overwhelming position.
>
>And yet in almost all cases the outcome depended not on the inherent structure
>of the play, but on some chance combination which one side saw and the other
>side did not.
>
>Tactics is still more than 90% of chess.
>
>w.b.r.
>Otello
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.