Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:04:47 04/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2003 at 18:58:44, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >Let me elaborate. I think it's a bad idea to give comment during a game. I think >it teaches nothing but the wrong things. 1). It can be during replay/analysis (even if that means forced moves in play mode) 2).I think it depends a).who's playing, his psychological makeup b).mental/emotional state at the time, c). His objective at time of play [It might be to stimulate the brain, where interactivity might help a great deal]d).Maybe to sometimes use it together with his own (developing) objectivity, in which case I personally think that chess is difficult enough that he'll already discover for himself how little he can actually rely on _positional assesments_ made by an automation during a game. No one was saying the speaking would be about concrete give aways. That you can get from the viewable computer "thinking", which of course isn't good to look at when trying to work out the best move during play. > >The biggest problem most moderate chess players have is to play in a structured >way, to visualize and work their way to standard situations where one can >develop a combination, or gain positional advantage etc. > >The chatter (or kibitzer) feature could well make that even worse: during the >execution of a plan you're continuously getting feedback about the flaws. This >is a bad training strategy. > >I think it's important for training purposes to develop and execute a plan, and >see afterwards if it worked out OK or not, and not *during* the execution, which >will make most players start wandering from pointer to pointer, stray from their >plans and thus from structured playing. One might learn how wrestle with different types of ideas in a position, as well as ones own, and weigh one against the other, and see afterwards who was right (upon analysis). > >Most teachers will explain you a principle, let you execute it without >interfering, and have you tell afterwards what you thought. _Then_ they'll give >positive and negative feedback, not _during_ the training. > >You shouldn't follow in-game instructions, you should learn to play in a >structured way and think *clean*. I think both ways have a place, the main thing is that mind is stimulated to work. And both possibilities would exist (to whatever extent) if there were such a function/functions (good, varied, intelligent chatter(s)). > >The best options are after-game analysis and good handicap modes to give a chess >player of any strength (expert and newbee alike) a chance to try out tactical >ideas, and check afterwards where the flaws are. If you play on handicap modes, you will be very likely to see numerous handicapped computer flaws! But handicap is a seperate discussion too. I don't know how instructive it is alone, as it's more like a competition, which is more dependant on allertness and concentration (raw energy, though not guided much). > >So all I wanted to say was: you may ask comments on an IMO bad idea, but with >those comments even a bad idea doesn't become a good idea. > >Of course: YMMV. Each his own opinion. No offense. > >J. Thanks for yours, and more is welcome, if you have. S.Taylor
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.