Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:52:58 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2002 at 23:15:42, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 27, 2002 at 21:38:07, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 27, 2002 at 21:13:55, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> <snip> >>Consider the following scenario: >> >>A chess player routinely does post-mortem analysis of all his/her games. >> >>The positions in the games where that chess player "failed to solve the problems >>of the position" would be thoroughly analyzed and studied until the chess player >>fully understood the positions. >> >>These key positions would be indelibly imprinted on the memory due to the >>intensive and extensive post-mortem analysis. >> >>In future games, the chess player will not make the same mistakes. In fact, >>he/she will recognize similar positions and will remember the lessons learned >>from them. > >It is not possible to remember everything. The more you know the more you can >forget. chess is much too complicated. Well, some have said that GMs rely on "pattern recognition" to a great extent. For mere mortals, like me, inability to remember IS a problem. [I am getting old.] Bob D. > >> >>In other words, the human chess player would learn faster and better. The >>quality of chess would improve worldwide. > >not necessary. opening knowledge will improve. humans and computers analyse >completely different. Computers, IMHO, should help in all phases of the game, if used properly. For example, chess engine analyses tend to produce moves not previously considered by humans [or, at least, not by me.] If a GM examines such new moves, he/she may be able to recognize and then use the ideas inherent in such new moves. The way a computer arrived at the new move should not make any difference. It's the idea(s) inherent in the move that counts. Incidentally, by 2050 the chess engines should be much more sophisticated. This assumption is based on faith in the [human] chess programmers. > > The use of such wonderful analysis >>machines would make post-mortem analysis a very popular activity among chess >>players. > >in fact, too much post-mortem analysis with computers can weaken your chess >strength a lot. It's excessive reliance on computer analyses which would be detrimental? Like just playing the computer's moves in correspondence chess? Perhaps there is a "correct" way to use chess analysis machines and a "wrong" way. It is noteworthy that Kasparov says he uses Fritz in his home analyses. Perhaps he does it the "correct way." Why cannot I do that too? I print the key positions, which I failed to solve during my games, in a notebook and look at them every now and then. Since my memory is not so hot anymore, I occasionally have to "resolve" the positions when I look at them, assuming it has been awhile since the last time. Then I look at the solutions to see if I got it right this time. Surely, this cannot be a bad thing to do! The computer is not involved at all after the positions and solutions have been printed. Bob D. <snip>
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.