Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 12:40:20 11/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>It has been said about chess than having any plan, even a bad one, is better >>than having no plan at all. > > I disagree. > Sometimes there is no way to do progress in the position. > If you understand it you can draw the game by do nothing when the opponent > also cannot do nothing against you and if you try to attack you > create weaknesses and lose the game. > It seems you are translating "plan" as "attack". A plan to create or maintain impregnable position, to anticipater and preempt any possible breaks or to set up traps should opponent try the break anyway, is all within concept "plan". Plan doesn't have to be a plan of attack and doesn't have to aim for the whole point either. In any case, any heuristic/didactic rule of this kind needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Which is why they're hard give to a program since programs lack the common sense to make a judgment about their common sense limits and recognize exceptions, all implicit in the human commnication of such rules. BTW, a while ago I had ran across some mathematical preprints from Israel on strategy games, with a name of one of the authors U. Blass. Was that you with the permuted first and last name?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.