Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:11:21 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2003 at 08:08:18, martin fierz wrote: >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 For match prep he spent weeks/months at a time going over games, honing his tactics, etc. I don't know how that all factored in with his teaching, although in later years I don't think he did much teaching at all...
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.