Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 04:51:13 11/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1999 at 06:10:34, blass uri wrote: >On November 11, 1999 at 05:15:30, Eelco de Groot wrote: > >>For Blitz you are probably right that 'depth' is probably better than >>'knowledge', Tina... But maybe only up to a point? If you know that you will be >>playing against a tactical monster might a more positional style and knowledge >>not be what could save you then? > >If you play against a tactical monster it is very dangerous. >one tactical mistake is enough to lose the game. > >I think that tactics is important also for correspondence games. >Deeper blue did not see the draw against kasparov in the final position of game >2 because of tactical problems. > >Ed discovered that tactics was important in his 1 hour/move games > >I do not believe that knowledge=500 is productive in practical games even at >slow time control. > >Uri Maybe you are right about that last bit, Uri. Only if you happen to be in a position where that last bit of knowledge applies you would of course be helped by it. The idea was more that if you had some extra defensive extensions that mainly look at tactical possibilities by opponent, you wouldn't have to sacrifice quite as much knowledge in Blitz (or rapid or even under tournament conditions against a fast opponent), or alternatively be a little less selective closer to the root. You could also use a lttle more time for looking at pins maybe, like Roy Brunjes described in his review or use one of other approaches like lessening value of pawns. But tactics remain more than 90%, I'm sure, of the game. Unfortunately not my strong point, tactics... Eelco
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.