Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:33:32 02/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2004 at 08:47:52, Frank Nelson wrote: >Bob: I do not consider blitz chess to be real chess unless you are down to your >last 2 minutes to make 15 moves in a tournament time-control. Just as in >football in chess when you blitz you can get burned!! Anatoly Karpov was a good >example of this in the mid-70's and mid-80's. It is obvious that it is more >likely that you can play more games with blitz chess as opposed with time >consuming sudden death or tournament chess. Having recently played through the >Tal-Botvinnik 1960 match and analysis, I am concerned that the blitz chess I >play on a chess server is bad for my chess (just gives me a illusion that I am >playing chess). Also playing through last month's Corus GMA and GMB games I >realize that grandmaster chess is about move versus countermove rather than >brute force (not the ChessMaster personality). You're right about what it is >that I desire to accomplish here. Playing chess presupposes that you have >adequate time to think about your move(s) before touching your pieces. Aargh!? >Maybe I will go on a blitz chess budget of not more than 8 games a day. Still >though as you alluded to Bob, I want to play the strongest chess that I can. > >cheers, Frank What you wrote above provides some insight into your personal preferences. You like to play through GM games and wish to play "strong" chess, which seems to be "slow" chess. That is fine! You should follow your preferences as long as you stay within the law, get enough to eat and sleep, and remain happy. : ) I looked through the book you referenced. De La Maza apparently never reached the chess performance level that you have, so his perscription for "improvement" is probably all wrong in your case. You have already achieved what his training program is supposed to accomplish. There is the issue of how computer chess can help you to do what you want to do. There are two aspects to this: (a) using chess software, and (b) creating chess software. The latter activity might be of interest to you if you are skilled at computer programming. Attempting to create computer code which is both functional and efficient surely must be enlightening, although I cannot speak from personal experience and accomplishments in chess programming. I am currently in the process of going through chess books with a friend, among other things. The computer has proven to be very useful for this. The following is based on my use of Chessbase products but the same could be done on products of the competitors of Chessbase. Before going through a new printed book, I create a database of games for the book. For example, my friend and I are about to go through Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy together so I am creating the database for that book. I use three databases although there are others which might be just fine for the purpose. Megabase 2004, Correspondence Database 2002 and a database of composed problems and studies are all I need to find most of the games in the printed books. The use of a chess engine as an analysis engine running under Chessbase 8.0 is helpful for spotting analysis errors in the printed books. Currently, Shredder is supposed to be the strongest engine except that it's principal variation [PV] seems messed up due to a bug in the software, so maybe using the Fritz engine is best. The PVs presented by Fritz is halfway reasonable. Early authors like Pachman did not have the luxury of checking their analyses and so they missed a lot. I must go now, but note that some authors suggest spending about a third of your time on openings, another third on middlegame, and the last third on endgames. This, too, is a matter of preference. Best wishes, Bob D.
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.