Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:08:18 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 16:18:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 07, 2003 at 11:53:38, martin fierz wrote: > >> >>>>that game, and studied it like no other. but he still studied less than any >>>>average chess professional does chess today. >>> >>>I don't know that I buy that. I knew him for many years and he studied a >>>_lot_. And he also played chess, as I have reported in the past, but he >>>was maybe a 2000 player there. >> >>AFAIK he used to teach (i.e. had a normal job) and he was also very religious, >>devoting more time to bible studies than to checkers - at least in his later >>years. >>a chess professional does nothing else but play+study chess. well, ok, at least >>the serious ones do :-) >>i don't see how tinsley could match that with his job and religious interest. >>but you knew him, i only have hearsay - so how much did he really study >>checkers? >> >>cheers >> martin > >I really can't answer. I never asked. Most of our conversations were about >either checkers (A student of mine modified Cray Blitz to play checkers and >Marion played it a few games for fun while visiting Hattiesburg MS for a >world checker championship match, this got him interested in the computer >aspect) or about chess and the real Cray Blitz, which he considered a real >nemesis on the chess board. > >Obviously checker openings are way simpler than chess, so it was easy for him >to wow me with announcements on the second or third move as "this is lost for >the computer" or "this is a draw" (we had no checker opening book at all at >the time.) i'm not sure i would call them simpler. i would rather call them more tricky, if anything. many natural moves lose instantly, as early as move 2 or 3 as you mention. but they're the natural move in that position. it takes deep analysis to prove they lose, and good play to win. of course, playing against tinsley, you got just that :-) in chess this simply doesn't happen this early, except for ridiculous moves like 1...f5 and 2...Kf7 or so. so i would call checkers openings "way more forcing". >He did talk about match prep from time to time and about how much time he spent >going over old games. How that compares to a modern chess GM I have no idea >at all. And, unfortunately, it is a bit too late to ask him. :( so, what did he say then? a modern chess GM probably has a 30-40-hour week for chess, i would guess. i'll go and ask the GMs i know next time i meet them! 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.