Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:10:17 12/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1998 at 03:41:00, Komputer Korner wrote:
<snipped the previous 10 pages>
>I can't believe that 3 US masters are arguing against going over their games
>move by move when the whole chess world DOES this. Sure CM6000 can be used to
>play against and does have auto annotate, but are 3 US masters arguing that it
>is not necessary to go over their games move by move? If they think that just
>because they now have a computer to play against , that is enough ;they are
>sadly mistaken. Every chess player worth his salt looks at his games in post
>mortem. This happened before computers came along and it happens with them. So
>we now have the ridiculous situation that 3 US masters say that it is not
>necessary to do this. They say that All you have to do is play against a chess
>engine and use it's auto annotate overnight and that is all you need the
>computer for to improve. So they say no need to go over your games move by move.
>They say no need to use the computer in player player mode with engine PVs
>showing on screen. They say that the whole historical practice of players
>looking at their games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving
>forward can be thrown out the window. THIS IS NONSENSE. This is the single most
>important way to improve even for a 1500 player. The advantage now is that
>that player can use an engine to help him. Just playing is not enough. You have
>to study your games. Computers will never obsolete this practice. I can't
>believe I have to explain this to 3 US masters but sometimes life is strange.
>--
>Komputer Korner
One has to be very careful about these generalizations. "The single most
important way to improve" is usually a different story for different people. I
have a friend (French IM Francois Vareille) who turned IM a couple of years ago
but whom I knew from my first chess tournament back when he was rated 2295 FIDE
and prior to my first rating of 1580. I had asked him as just about every eager
beginner inevitably does: what was the biggest contributor to his present
strength? His answer was that around when he was rated 1800 or so, he had picked
up Ludek Pachman's trilogy "The Complete Strategy" published by Batsford, had
pored over the books questioning and analyzing every move for hours and when he
was through a few months later, he experienced a jump in rating that brought him
to around 2100+ or so. I followed this advice religiously, but had trouble
actually applying the knowledge of the book in my games. The fact of the matter
was simpy that I wasn't strong enough to properly benefit from the book. I
continued to pursue chess perfection in a very pele-mele manner still looking
for that magic formula, until I hit upon mine: Tactics. I studied successively I
book by Yaacov Neishtadt called "Lecons de Tactique" which brought me to about
1800 and then the books by Livshitz (Pergamon Press) called "Test Your Chess IQ"
volumes 1 and 2 (and some of the 3rd), which saw my rating jump from 1880 (my
national rating in France) to 2230 FIDE. Although I had all kinds of material
that I would still use here and there, these were the only books I actually
studied cover to cover. So when someone asks me what I recommend, you can guess
my answer. I have begun studying my games more seriously, but again, I will say
that computers are only allowed to opine AFTER I have put in my perspiration
into the matter. The reason is simply that I found that I was becoming (probably
the biggest reason for my stagnation in the last few years) increasingly lazy
about properly analyzing a position, and had stopped "pushing it" the way I used
to when I was studying the aforementioned books. Then, I would NEVER give up,
NEVER look up the answer, and would strain my neurons to the limit, now I have
to resist the urge to set it up in Fritz or another program, and must relearn to
think things out for myself. It's very dangerous to get into the habit of having
a computer do your thinking for you. So when I analyze a game, I put it in a
notebook (no easy ALT-F5 at my disposal this way) and have had to contend with
the difficult task (psychologically) of finding where my opponent could have
improved his play, maybe even won (this can be quite difficult as one NEVER
wants to admit that this was possible, especially if the opponent is one that
one deems weaker), and where I could have played better. You are right in that
few players make the most of their computer programs, but I would hesitate to
say that their training methods are weak or of no value. The Grandmasters around
have for the most part achieved the greater part of their playing strength
WITHOUT computers, plus I suspect that most of the ones that DO use computers
use them essentially for opening preparation, and not for all-purpose studying.
I'm certainly not claiming there is something wrong with your method, but surely
there is more than one road to perfection.
Albert Silver
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.