Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:53:42 10/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
>I could envision a chess player that is as strong at chess as Marion Tinsley >was at checkers. If a player only loses a couple of games over a 20 year >period, he's going to most likely have a 3000+ rating, again assuming that >he matches Tinsley's overall performance and not drawing _every_ game. IMO chess players are better at chess than checkers players at checkers. i don't want to say anything against tinsley, but checkers is *far* from the level of professionalism that chess has achieved. you have hundreds or maybe even thousands of intelligent people studying chess hard, many hours a day, for years. how many like that do you have in checkers? not one. no non-professional chess player is anywhere near the top. what made tinsley unique (besides his talent) is that he was really dedicated to that game, and studied it like no other. but he still studied less than any average chess professional does chess today. checkers players have no database tools like chessbase. tinsley had no strong programs to analyze with. checkers literature is virtually non-existent compared to the massive body of chess literature. another point about tinsley and his very rare losses is that he was a very cautious player, who would rather win a match with 1 win and 19 draws than with 9 wins, 1 loss and 10 draws. checkers is very drawish. you cannot compare the small number of his losses in checkers to chess. cheers martin
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.