Author: Michael Henderson
Date: 14:04:55 01/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
>I can only say that I disagree with the last post that say that if we have a >program like that we will not need human training. I meant that demand for human training would decrease (not eliminated). >Chess is a tactical game and my opinion is that positional explanations is not >the most important thing to improve in chess. > >My opinion is that players(and I am not talking only about weak players but also >about players with rating near 2000) need to improve in tactics and to see >faster things like a piece that is under attack. > >Speed is important here because even at slow time control you may not have a lot >of time to evaluate one line that you calculate and if you do not see that a >piece is under attack in some variant it may cause you to make a tactical >blunder or positional blunder and when you see the problem during the game it >may be too late. It is probably easier to make a computer give an explanation on tactics than a positional explanation. However, tactics must be tied in with the positional information.
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.