Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 04:21:39 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 04:57:06, stuart taylor wrote:
>On April 22, 2002 at 22:56:32, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 22, 2002 at 22:40:10, Ralph Patriquin wrote:
>>
>>>I was just toying with this idea tonight. Would writing a chess program help
>>>your chess playing? I'm thinking in particular of a program that relies more
>>>on evaluation than brute force search. Would the act of explicitly writing
>>>out the algorithms so that a computer can understand, for example, weak squares
>>>or passed pawns help your play? Would this exercise help clarify your own
>>>thinking in actual play? Is it worth doing with chess improvement as the
>>>primary goal? Any comments from all who've been there are appreciated.
>>>
>>>Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>>It has definitely improved my understanding of the game and my chess skills. But
>>I am still a weak player.
>>
>>One thing that is very important to understand is that chess is really 90%
>>tactics. And writing a chess program will not help you in this area.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Even just being obsessed with chess programs can make a person lazy about
>working things out by himself.
>It's a wonder that 10% can be improved by studying chess knowledge!
>S.Taylor
This actualy is not an answer to 1 poster on this threat
But random
If your to lazy to look if what your program plays is good or not
It does not learn you anything.
Always ask your self the question why or why not
And you always must be critical no mather if it is a program or a GM who plays
the moves.
Both do make mistakes!
Positinal moves are also important for tactics.
The rule the thread is stronger then the execute!
(Building up the position (Positionaly) before the execute leads to a clear
advantage,while after the direct execute the advantage can lead to an unclear
position!
I also have analyzed games in which only positional moves where of importance.
In which no real tactics where involved
Ok in the end the mateing
But the position was lossed because of positional play.
An other proof is that positional knowledge is of much importance is shown
by the Rebel personelety contest Where the best tactical engine was not realy
useable for chess games.
There als is gain in forcing the oponent to make moves which weakens it's
position (This is a combo of both Tactical because of the force positionaly
because the oponent's position gets worse.
I Think the balance is about 60% tactics 40% positionaly rather then 90% 10%
(If this was the case a Chessprogram would be great for chess learning)
Of 100% importance is time or tempo.
This counts for the intire game Opening Midlegame and Endgame
In closed positions this in fact does not change it is only more dificult to
find ways to keep the tempo.
And then positional knowledge also is of much importance.
This rule acures many times then It is better to build up the pawn structure
then to play the pieces after which no good moves are left.
Kind of Zug Zwang.
For instance the game Smirnin Deep Schredder started with a positional mistake
Bg4.
By Deep Schredder
(Because f3 did not weaken but increased White's position so a positional
misunderstanding)
And the game was won because of extra time on tactics by Smirnin
The path of most sucsesfull players is first learn tactics
then learn positional play.
The books which helped me much was for instance Capablanca's book about chess
strategy
Then Vucovic's book about sacrefices
Then Ludweck Pachman's book mitten Spiel im Praxis
I also spend much time on the book of the 1981 Interpolis chess tournament
Which also did learn me something but you can't place it in a catogery.
(Which was not only about tactics by the way)
Then Siera's chess program Power chess
Which also included a rewritten version of Nimzowisch Mein System
Then Eduard Gufelds book
Winning with the Kings Indian
I even once said that Eduard Gufeld's book Exploiting small advantages might be
worth while to read for chess programers.(The title looks tempting)
besides that Vukovic's answer why sacrefices are made by one and not the other
In the same position is the will to win.
And Eric Schillers piece in the Sicilian for the tournament player
Explained the basic opening and midle game rules perfectly.
Regards Marc
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.