Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:29:16 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 16:59:33, Charles Roberson wrote: > >>> The book delineates these stages: >>> 1) The days of Grecko 1600?-1634? -- elaborate piece excursions. > There was no systemic play. It was merely active > piece pla with little thought of defense. He who > gets there first wins. > >>> 2) The discovery of pawns -- Philidor,1726 - 1795 > Previously the pawns were ignored. They were important > for promotional purposes but not much else. Philidor > discovered and teaches that the pawns are the soul of > the game. The pawns should be utilized in the opening > and the middle game. However, Philidor was not fully > understood. > >>> 3) Long live the combination -- Anderssen, 1818 - 1879 > During this period mankind ignored Philidor's approach. > Positional play was boring. Risky tactics were king again. But, > this time (due to Philidor) the skill level of the tactics were > increased. > >>> 4) Combination for Strategic ends -- Morphy, 1837 - 1884 > Paul Morphy took the chess world by storm beating the top > masters of the time and using a style completely new. > He was a very good tactician but (unlike the rest) he > had an excellent positional awareness. He started attacks > only when the position warranted it. > >>> 5) Positional play -- Steinitz, 1836 -- 1900 > Morphy left the world only his games. He did not teach. > Steinitz studied the games of Morphy and created a system > of play based on the games of Morphy. Steinitz became world > champ and taught the world to play better chess. He promoted > the slow/positional gain of small advantages without giving > up weakness. At the point of positional superiority, tactics > would be bountiful. > >>> 6) Technique and Routine -- The Virtuosi, 1900 - 1914. >>> Here he discusses Capablanca and others of the period > This group of players combined the tactical expertise of > (3) with the positional teachings of Steinitz. Some claimed > their games slow and boring. Here I mean, slow in development > of pressures in the game. Never making a mistake -- just > waiting on the opponent to make one. > >>> 7) The independent thinkers -- 1919 - 1940 > Nimzovitch, Reti et al were fighting the dogmatist of the past. > They were called the hypermoderns and insisted (among other > things) that the center needed to be controlled which did not > necessarily mean occupied. Thus, the creation of the fianchetto > openings. > >>> 8) New thirst for battle -- the russian school: 1945 to Present day >>> (1966). > In this period, keeping up the pressure was the motto. Active > defences were sought (counter attack ...). Also, the exchange > sacrifice was mastered as a way to keep the initiative and > positional pressure up. > > > That is a summary of each section. This clearly shows the evolution > of chess style. Thus, I say that it is still evolving. But each jump > requires some stimulating event. Today that stimulation is comming from > the computer play. > > The GM that learns to incorporate the priniciples to beat computers > into a cohesive understanding of chess will defeat the chess world. > > Charles Charles, actually I was a bit joking when I asked you the question. Now you have done the good work and I want to thank you with a little reaction although I must contradict you with determination. Look, what you've done is the description of chess concepts. Now a computer is unable to add something to these concepts. He is dumb, blind, but still a perfect calculater. But the best human players are also very good at that. They won't show in these show events. Because in such show events the GM have a totally different task and that's what they are paid for. They should guarantee interesting episodes in chess. And I would say that the third game was interesting for most amateur players and patzers. Simply because they must play such position all day long. Such lost or won positions depending on the side. The third game was lost. Period. But to win that would havebeen a disadvantage to the sponsors. Kasparov's class is that he performed such a nonsense position into something reasonable by his own faults of course. And that is exactly what he's paid for. Rolf Tueschen
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.