Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:13:35 02/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2002 at 16:37:53, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On February 04, 2002 at 16:19:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >Players in simuls against much weaker players do not calculate a damn thing. >They just play the first move that pop into their heads. Once in a while they >stop to calculate to finish up a game but that is the minority of the cases. > >You are less likely to blunder when your pieces are in the right spot and you >follow plans that you did hundreds of times before. Not to mention if you >managed to trade queens and went into an endgame. You can go into cruise control >against a lesser player. > >Regards, >Miguel I can give a simple example I know about the idea of the following simple mate: Qc4+ Kg8-h8 Ne5-f7+ Kh8-g8 Nf7-h6+ Kg8-h8 Qc4-g8+ Rxg8 Nf7# Suppose that I play a simultan game against weak players and my opponent blunder and give me the opportunity to use that idea. In this case I win the game. Did I win thanks to tactics? yes. Did I play the first move that I think about? Yes Playing the first move that you think about does not mean that you cannot outsearch the opponent. I suspect that in part of the games the GM simply outsearch the opponent inspite of the fact that it is a simultan game. 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.