Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 08:45:51 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 11:43:02, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. > I agree; that's why I specified "tactical annotations." :-)
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.