Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 03:29:17 02/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2002 at 06:28:03, Marc van Hal wrote: >On February 05, 2002 at 06:23:05, Marc van Hal wrote: > >>On February 05, 2002 at 01:35:35, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2002 at 18:56:51, Marc van Hal wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>>Actualy this is precisely what a diagramplayer thinks >>>>You say did I play the first moves I was thinking of yes >>>>Not looking at where Black's pieces where standing. >>>>I can give you a precise position where Qc4+ does not win and Qd5+ does win. >>>>Near the fact that my pawn on b5 can capture your queen hehe >>> >>>It is not going to happen to good players. >>> >>>They are usually careful not to do stupid blunders and putting a piece at a >>>place that it can be captured not as part of a combinatopn is not going to >>>happen if they are good on tactics and tactics is not only combinations. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The blunder I have givven by the difernce of the moves Qc4+ or Qd5+ >>Is quite comon. >>In that position Black threatens to give mate in 1! >>a Black rook is on f8 and black pawn on c5. nopawn! on the d-file a Black pawn >>on g7 a pawn on h7 and Black the king on g8 >>the pawn on c5 stops the check on the 8th rank wich is necasery for White to >>give mate after rook takes f7. >>This is important to know to recognize the patern corectly. >> >>Marc >> >>Regards Marc >>After rook takes f7. > >Hehe I am a litle bit gulty of making the same mistake as you did ofcourse there >is only 1 black rook on the 8th rank ,the one on f8. And no queen
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.