Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:19:04 02/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2002 at 16:04:52, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On February 04, 2002 at 15:37:38, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2002 at 11:40:07, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2002 at 10:38:04, David Rasmussen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Thanks for the link. Great article! I too am a weak chess player, and I have >>>>also recently had an insight about focusing on tactics instead of positional >>>>knowledge. I have 40 chess books or so, and of course some of them are about >>> >>>I found this kind of things too dogmatic. >>>The most important part of learning is interest and motivation. If you despise >>>going through thousands of tactical exercises with nothing in between for >>>a year most probably your are going to quit after two weeks. This is like >>>the magic diets where you have to juggle your day around the diet. >>>As always, improvement is an individual effort and depends very much on the >>>individual. That's where the importance of the teacher comes, NOT TO EXPLAIN >>>WHY Ba4 is better than Bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez. >>>Tactics will be a key for a player, but might not be for another. There >>>hundreds of details that are important and some of them are not even related >>>to chess (like attention etc.). In general, tactics are very important >>>particularly at that level, but it is not wise to separate it from everything >>>else. >>>Tactical exercises are good, but it is never good to be 100% of the training. >>> >>>Ah! do not forget to play real OTB chess, but not too much. 60-80 slow paced >>>(anything that last more than 3 hours) games a year, select some and analyze >>>them to death WITHOUT A COMPUTER, show it to a stronger player or a friend. >>>Share analysis... Then, use your computer. Keep a notebook with everything... >>> >>>Regards, >>>Miguel >>> >> >>I know what you mean, and I generally agree. I too find the article dogmatic, >>but that doesn't matter, IMO. Sometimes that's needed to fight another (older) >>dogma. The articles is even wrong at some points: It is not necesarily better to >>be able to look 5 moves with "no positional knowledge (not even material?)", >>than to look 4 moves with Grandmaster level positional knowledge. In chess >>programming terms: There are a lot of evaluation terms that makes up for search >>depth: If you have a passed pawn on the 6th rank supported by your king in an >>endgame, with positional knowledge, you will know with a 0-ply search that this >>is strong, whereas it takes a 3-ply search with "no knowledge" to see this. > >Besides, a GM can play a full game without calculating at all (say just 3-4 >plies) and outplay a 1900 player that spend 2 hours for the game. >That's what happen in simuls. I think that you are wrong to assume that the GM does not calculate at all. I believe that few seconds of GM's calculation is simply often better than few minutes of 1900's player calculation. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.