Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 02:11:39 12/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1998 at 02:43:43, Komputer Korner wrote: >On December 21, 1998 at 06:44:58, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On December 21, 1998 at 03:41:00, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >> >>>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 did not say that playing is alll that you have to do. >>They only said that it is one of the things that can help you >> >>You can also use chessmaster6000 to go over your games move by move. >>It is less convenient to do it but if you give the computer at least some >>minutes for every move then it is not an important disadvantage (If you give it >>only some seconds per move then I agree that it is better to use other programs >>also because of the fact that chessmaster is not very good at blitz) >> >>The fact that you can change personalities is an important advantage of >>chessmaster6000 >>If you want to learn an opening that you prepare against your opponent and you >>know that you understand a positional idea that the computer does not >>understand. >> >>If you use fritz5 then you cannot make the program understand the position so >>you cannot learn much from playing against it. >> >>If you use chessmaster then you can change parameters and make the computer >>understand the position. >> >>This is the reason that I believe that chessmaster6000 is one of the most >>important programs for grandmasters. >> >>I am not close to be a grandmaster and I think that it is interesting to ask >>grandmasters about it. >> >>Maybe they did not think about using the computer in this way and this is the >>reason that they do not use chessmaster6000. >> >>>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. >> >>They did not say that the whole historical practice of players looking at their >>games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving forword can be thrown >>out the window. >> >>Uri > >This changing personality thing is interesting. However you are never sure that >the program will understand any position. However I must admit it has merit if >only that it substitutes for buying a lot of other engines. However the >argument is still 1) move by move analysis of one's own games vs 2) tactical >puzzle solving and looking at GM games > >Chris Dorr and 3 other masters seem to be saying that 2 is more important than >1. How important merely playing is can be seen by many who never improve their >whole lives so clearly only playing is not the most important way to improve. So >it comes down to 1 vs 2. I say 1 is more important and Chris says 2 is more >important. I agree that looking at GM games is important but we don't need a >chess engine to do that. It may be that both ways are equally valid. We need >more opinions from other masters. >-- >Komputer Korner 'Playing serious chess in rated tournaments is the single best way that most people can improve their game. Starting at a young age, and bringing into that a commitment to improvement with a chess coach and/or teacher can only bring more benifit.' This is the considered opinion of many chess coaches, teacher's and even Grandmasters that I have met in my 25 years of involvement in the chess world, and stated again and again, even before the computer was any much a factor in anyone's game. I believe that it is a big misaprehension to conclude that, 'many who never improve their whole lives so clearly only playing is not the most important way to improve.' This is simply wrong. A more accurate statement (IMO), would be, that those who play chess with out a serious regimine of training, review and study, are likely condemmed to very minimal improvement. I know quite a few people like this. They play chess, even rated chess on a weekly basis. Win, Lose or Draw, they come back the next week, play the same way and have the same results, week after week, year after year. You ask them what games they studied, or what preparation they did for the event, & they tell you they play for the fun of the game. They don't get too caught up in the latest chess magazine, or the latest improvement book. They could care less, that their rating is 1600 (or whatever). They need to get out of the house, or away from their wife & kids. Then you meet Chess Master's who Play & Play & Play. They are very serious, they study every free moment at the chess club, and think quite intensly on how to improve their results. And they do achieve some amazing results. I'm thinking of New Yorks IM, JB. (Name omitted to protect anonminity). They haven't yet bothered with computer's, but they are incredibly strong and practicle in their approach. They are still making progress, but that elusive string of GM results still eludes them. Then there are the 'week masters', like myself, We (I) would do anything short of selling my soul to improve my game. We buy all the latest chess books, we invest heavily in the computer stuff, and we argue endlessly on these newsgroups about the right approach to chess improvement. In truth, we know that JB's approach is both the most practical and successful. The results speak for themselves! But we go our own way because we can't dedicate ourselves completely like IM JB has done. Still it is true that if we could, we would probably be able to get an edge ultimately, because of the advantage of using the additional tool, the computer, irregardless of wheather KK is right, or these 3 other masters. Another Master's opinion, mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict!
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.