Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 13:07:03 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 15:24:33, Torstein Hall wrote: >In my view I find this players had a very different approach to the game. ok. we have different opinions. no problem. >Lasker in his own words, common sense. (Realising that the oponent was a human, >not a chess computer!) lasker is NOT playing the best move. he is the historical opponent of Dr.TARRASCH who indeed thought a best move would exists, and it is the job of the chess player to find it. there were many disputes concerning this topic. in those disputes lasker was the opposite opinion than Tarrasch was. Tarrasch was a reductionist. he believed that since chess has a finite move number, a player could find out about the BEST move. but thats nonsense. we know that chess is finite, but we also know that it needs much much time to find out about BEST moves. more time a human would ever had. maybe later, in a few years, when we have working quantum-computers. than we can go for this target. but in the moment you get MANY good moves. and you can order them in the order YOUR IDEAS suggest them. Your move order is YOUR thesis. and the opponent can try to refute this. by showing that his order is more precise. his ideas are more correct. but both, humans, computers, are working into a range of POSSIBLE moves. And those possible moves, you can play, but nobody knows if the move order you give these moves is right. only god or - in the endgame - tablebases know. lasker knew this. his WHOLE LIFE he was capable to change his mind. he was not narrow minded, like Tarrasch and other materialists. who believe there is a golden way. a dogma. and you only have to follow this dogma. this principle. thats nonsense. steinitz, capablanca, they both believed - like tarrasch - in a mechanical chess. they were materialists and believed you could create a mechanical kind of chess that is Best move - best move - best move- and the best move wins. lasker was different. he had no dogma. he adapted. he changed mind. he changed country. he knew tarrasch and capablanca and steinitz are WRONG. that was part of his ideology. and the reason lasker was for SO LONG SO STRONG. believe me. the topic is in my head all day. because i scan lasker into my computer each day a few pages. and i worked about the book: attack with michael tal, together with chris whittington. in chess system tal you can see the fog in the search tree. we made this graphics for US to see this fog happen. we knew cstal is digging in the mud when the tree shows it. > Fisher in my words was/is fairly single minded trying to >I'm not sure Tal ever was really in the fog! i see what you mean. but i believe those players knew and thought that there is no BEST move. and this is what any artist knows. no matter if painter or writer or chess player or musician. there is not only ONE way to play a music. you interprete the song. the melody. or the concert. there is no: BEST WAY to do so. its not important. only important is: do you like it, is it a success, is it beautiful. look e.g. my new century4 style macheide, inspired by emanuel lasker. if i would have understood lasker wrong, the style would not be able to increase rebel century's playing strength, or ?
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.