Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:43:02 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 11:11:53, Roy Eassa wrote: >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! >>S.Taylor > > >I agree that many tactical annotations by GMs have errors in them. Probably >"most" do. I think any GM annotating any game since the early '90s is >*negligent* if he does not use a computer to assist with the tactics. The >combination of a fast computer, strong program, and a GM spending the necessary >time will, IMHO, produce the best annotations. Some of the GM annotations that are very interesting do not need a computer. In fact, some of them do not even have a single variation. In those cases the help of the computer is very limited. It depends very much on the style of the annotator. One of the examples is David Bronstein, one of the all time great annotators. Regards, Miguel
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.