Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:25:05 12/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2001 at 17:54:07, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 29, 2001 at 14:57:29, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > > >>First, let me rephrase my english since I introduce a double negation: >> >>"NOT even amateurs are taught to think like a tree nowadays, and the >>best book about it is "How to reasess your Chess" by J. Silman." >> >>So, the influence is less and less to think like a tree. Still, there is >>tree component in the teaching but is limited to purely combinatorial >>situations. >> >>>I have read "How to reasess your Chess" and my impression was that the main >>>procedure Silman explains that is different to Kotov is how to get the candidate >>>moves and how to evaluate the resulting positions ( imbalances etc). >> >>I think is more than that. >>All the analysis with the imbalances is a non-tree approach and that is the core >>of the book. After that, you come up with a very good plan that will be tried in >>an analytic fashion (extremely reduced tree). Still, there is an emphasis in >>when NOT to calculate. See for instance part III (calculations) >>page 37 that the first two examples of this chapter is how NOT to calculate!! >>"... To calculate any variation at all would be a complete waste of time". >>Diagrams 28 and 29. Then, it goes to analyze a complex analytical situation >>but see what is says at the end: >>"Old experienced dogs like myself, will often avoid calculation even in this >>type of complicated situation and just play Rc5 cold turkey (of course, we would >>still use the thinking technique to find the correct plan! [MY NOTE: which is a >>non-tree approach])" >>The he explain why he would do that an adds >>"...Normally, you may want to look a couple of moves ahead to make sure that >>everything is in order..." >> >>The point is, sometimes you need to calculate, sometimes you need NOT to. >>Silman quoted a funny remark by R. Reti. Whe he asked how many moves ahead >>a GM usually calculates, he replied "one move". This is an exageration but >>sometimes it is true. >> >>>Or to put it in different words: I thought his work was mainly about reduzing >>>the tree size and getting more selective. >> >>Kotov's is supposed to be very selective! >>I think is the opposite, set your mind to a "non-tree thinking way" to see the >>truth of the position and later, if needed, calculate as in Kotov's. >>See that this book if for beginners, Nunn's and Tisdall's particularly, present >>a more elaborate way of calculation. Even in wild positions they are far from >>Kotov's "selective alpha-beta" approach. >> >>>I remember the first position in the book with the Qa7 move. It has been my >>>impression that it should be possible to teach a computer to think exactly like >>>this. >> >>What position is that? I cannot find it. >> >>Regards, >>Miguel >> > >I am talking about the very first position in the book ; now I think it was >something like Qc2-a4-a7 but it should be easy to find as it is the first one. > >My problem is I have borrowed the book to a friend a few years ago and never got >it back. I have saved the rest of your message to think about it more thoroughly >later. > >Thanks and kind regards, >pete I have the book Secrets of chess tactics by Mark Dvoretsky The first position in the book is: [D]1r2kb1r/1pRb1ppp/4p3/q2pP1B1/p2Q4/P2B4/1P3PPP/2R3K1 w k - 0 1 The book says 20.Rxd7 Kxd7 21.Qa7 When Shredder5.32 fails high again and again on 1.Qf4 The score at depth 10 is 7.82 for white when Shredder fails high again at depth 11 and get a score of 8.51 for white. main line at depth 11 begins 1.Qf4 Bc5 2.R1xc5 Qe1+ 3.Bf1 Qe4 4.Qxe4 dxe4 5.Rxd7 h6 6.Bb5 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.