Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:52:57 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 21:35:27, Telmo Escobar wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 13:02:18, Terry Ripple wrote: > >> >>Oh, i see what you meant, i agree that i made an inaccurate choice of two words >>as "Should Never"! Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you tried to convey! >>You are correct that the rules i post are usually correct, but there are very >>few cases where the rules don't apply! >> >>Terry > > There are a lot of cases where the rules, seemingly, don't apply. But the issue >is more complex. Chess is a very difficult game, and there are a lot of "rules" >still not written in elementary textbooks, just because knowledge improves >slowly and existing textbooks still are primitive ones. Top GMs understand the >game much deeper (although even they can make blunders). > Generally speaking, there are "rules" that are good for beginners, as their >ability is undeveloped and following some rules their chance to survive is >somewhat better. For strong players, those rules are less important. To be >precise, it's not that the rules don't apply: the point is that there are other >"rules" as well, more subtle ones, and you have to take into account these as >well. > For instance: it is often stated that isolated pawns tend to be more weak in >the endgame. This sounds believable inasmuch you have less pieces to defend >them- yet the opponent has less pieces to attack them as well. Also, it often >happens that an isolated pawn can't advance during the middlegame, but later, >with few pieces on the board, it can advance and be exchanged. Agreed. Another way to cut this pie is to look at the way people advance in their chess abilities in terms of models. A person who is just learning can benefit greatly from a very simplified model. For example, a collection of simple rules-of-thumb would suffice to model a much more complex game. The familiar "develop knights before bishops," move only two pawns in the opening, castle early, etc. are more than good enough for the beginner. As a chess player develops to higher levels, this simplified model is no longer sufficient. The intermediate player needs a more sophisticated model, but one which is still reasonably simple. Someone at Kramnik's level would find these models to be a serious handicap. Kramnik needs a much more hi-fidelity model. Perhaps someday in the future there will be human chessplayers who are MUCH stronger than Kramnik is today. They would likely find Kramnik's model to be overly simplified and useless. Bob D.
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.