Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:34:11 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 19:37:12, stuart taylor wrote:
>I've also often wondered if even GM annotators know exactly what they're talking
>about, or put things in the right perspective. So you agree it seems!
> So, there are some games which are so deep searchwise that it is still not easy
>to check out all variations, even with a top computer.
> So in such games, you would be claiming that it is great human searching
>faculty at work, basically.
>
>Anyway, the big question now is, what is the value of many GM written chess
>books? All they can speak about is not-so-important things, and not very
>provable things. All they do is to illustrate with a game in which the final
>result is winning, when that knowledge is used, but it may not be BECAUSE of
>that!
In this regard I think that computers can help to shed a new light on chess.
It has begun some years ago, and it is not uncommon to find theorical novelties
in games played by computers.
Christophe
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.