Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:20:17 02/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2006 at 19:29:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 03, 2006 at 17:02:46, Torstein Hall wrote: > >>On February 02, 2006 at 17:47:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2006 at 07:06:23, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>> >>>>Peter Swidler on Computers >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2897 >>>> >>>> >>>>"Chess and computer: what is the interest other than the money? >>>> >>>>You mean playing against the computer? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>>For me there is no particular interest. I never have been offered any serious >>>>matches, but, in general, I think playing against computers is not very >>>>exciting. Computers play so well these days that, to have a chance to win, you >>>>have to work very hard – and work hard at things that probably will be counter >>>>productive when you play against humans – so it probably will harm your chess a >>>>little. >>>> >>>>If there is no financial incentive, I don’t see why there is any interest at >>>>all. You can try competing with computers at calculation, but this is not very >>>>wise, if you want to win. So, basically you have to train in playing closed >>>>positions, keeping it as simple and as non-tactical as possible. It is possible >>>>but there is not much fun in that. Playing the computer – I mean proper seven >>>>hour games – I never saw any attraction in that, apart from money. So I don’t >>>>really play against the computers. I use computers, as we all do, for help when >>>>analyzing, as a background check. You analyze and have the computer running in >>>>the background, to keep your analysis relatively blunder free. And that’s about >>>>it. " >>> >>>You could also say "if there is no financial incentive to beat other humans, I >>>don't see why there is any interest at all". It's what being a professional >>>means. >>> >>>Vas >> >>It must be boring to be professional, if they only ever play for the love of >>money. But I can not imagine that is the attitude most professional chess >>players has. I even doubt Peter Svidler feel that way... >> >>Torstein > >If you and Vas speak about it, it cant be off-topic, so please let me >participate. I wished you two wouldnt twist what Svidler said. He said that _if_ >you weaken your own chess against a computer THEN only the money could be the >incentive to play - If playing against computers paid the bills, then no doubt Mr. Swidler would be worried that playing against humans might interfere with his computer-beating skills. I don't see anything wrong with this - money is a big source of motivation, although for many people it's not the only one. Vas because I ask you two non-grandmasters - in difference to >you two a Grandmaster of Chess _can_ weaken his chess qualities; proof Peter >Svidler! Of course for weaker players than a GM, this weakening is almost >impossible. So that is the reason why so many non-GM are busy in computerchess. >I cant remember when I weakened my play the last time, I get better and better >every day! ;)
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.