Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:43:49 02/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2002 at 17:13:35, Uri Blass wrote: >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. This is a pre-learned procedure spotted by pattern recognition. It is tactics but the GM do not actually _search_ 9 plies. It is in his "eval", it is knowledge, and that is the reason why more knowledge also increase your apparent tactical ability. Regards, Miguel > >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.