Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:29:37 12/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1998 at 09:11:59, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >KK, I have never once asserted that it's not important to go over one's game. >You will recall, in fact, that I stated that a critical component of my method >is tho annotate your tournament games *yourself*. This is definitionally going >over them. Then you can use this to compare against the computers analysis of >your game. I think self-analysis is *vital*. > >Self-analysis..that's the point. When you annotate your own game, you make >comments such as 'now on move 27, we see why 18.Bb3 was incorrect, because it >now takes three moves for the bishop to return to action on the kingside.' If >you are looking at the the screen and the PV on move 18, all you see is '18. Bd3 >a5 [more moves] +.35'. How does this help someone appreciate the reasons why >moves are good or bad, and how these things are connected? It's doesn't. > >You *can't* get this kind of connection to the rest of the game by looking at >some PV and score on screen. You just can't. And this is the kind of thing that >makes people better. Masters did this *long* before computers came along. > >What you seem to be advocating could only be done with a computer...how do you >explain the fact that people became masters before computers? What I am >suggesting uses a computer as a *tool* and an *adjunct*, not as an end in >itself. > >What you are suggesting is not worthless; it has it's place, but it is not >critical, and I don't believe that using it is using your computer to it's >'optimal extent' to paraphrase you. > >Interesting discussion, though...it's actually gotten me restarted on my book >about using computers in chess education...just what the world needs...another >chess book! > >Cheers, > >Chris Dorr >USCF Life Master In my experience, it is essential for me to attempt a critical evaluation before checking to see what the machine thinks. This is because of how I use the software: I will run it through, check a couple of lines briefly if I think the machine is out to lunch on a particular line, but generally will not spend a lot of effort on it. By comparison, if I annotate by myself, I work very hard to determine exactly what is going on, and examine all of the possibilities. This doesn't have to be the case. I could be more determined as I use the machine. I could always question its analysis, test my own responses, et cetera, just as I do when I am sitting at a table with just a chess set, paper and pencil. It's not true that I can't achieve an understanding of the flow of the game through a series of PVs: in fact, if you have worked a lot with computer chess programs, this isn't as hard as it might sound. But like anytime one is trying to learn, active learning is more effective than passive learning, and you can get involved. The PVs appearing on the screen don't have to relegate you to "armchair quarterback" status. But like I said above, I've found that this style of analysis doesn't work for me. If it works for KK, great, but I simply don't expend the kind of effort that I need to when I analyze on my computer. So I analyze it by myself, first, and later check my analysis with the machine. This works well for me, because I achieve a good understanding of most positions in the game, and the machine not only points out opportunities that the two players have missed, but also weaknesses in the analysis I have just so painstakingly created. To me, it's important to pin these down, to isolate the fault in my reasoning that led me to miss a strong continuation, even in the analysis period. There is also the side-effect of sometimes being able to prove to the computer that you are "right", e.g. the computer's score goes up, but when you play the intended moves for one side while the computer handles the other, and the score drops back down, it verifies that I understood the position well. Together with tactical puzzles from Your Move! (Neidstadt) and Test Your Chess IQ (Livshitz), this type of work allowed me to improve my game from Class B to Candidate Master. I've taken a break from working on my chess game for a while now, but when I resume doing so, this will again be the method I use. Dave Gomboc
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.