Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 03:32:24 02/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2002 at 06:29:17, Marc van Hal wrote: >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 And the queen is not on f7 or d7.
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.