Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 08:10:29 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 07:38:04, Sune Larsson wrote: >On December 09, 1999 at 17:35:24, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 04:28:20, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 1999 at 16:41:24, John Warfield wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> One of the Arguments used by those who advocate that Programs are not GM >>>>Strength is that Programs lose to 2200 players or less, whereas sopposedly GM's >>>>don't. I want to debunk this view by presenting this game played at the national >>>>open where six time U.S Champion Walter Browne gets crushed by a 2070!! Player. >>>>There are many other such games. Just where people are getting the ideal that >>>>grandmasters don't lose to lower rated players escapes me completely. >>> >>> Very interesting game! I will look closer at it in the evening. A bit busy at >>> the office right now. Colourful personality this Walter Shawn. Met with him >>> at a tourney way back in the 70th. Remember we had some good poker with the >>> Yugoslaves Janosevic and Damjanovic in the evenings, between the rounds. >>> Think Parma won that tournament. By the way, I see many talented persons >>> posting here. People that also say that they understand little about chess >>> and think they play badly. Can't really understand this, if of course you >>> have given chess some time. Think it's a matter of training. It´s not so >>> difficult to get a ELO of 2350. These people are not so strong. To become >>> a strong IM of 2450 you have to work much or have some talent. To become >>> an "ordinary" GM is more difficult - not to mention advancing to + 2600... >>> A nice way of learning the game is to play through lots of games. Just for >>> fun. See what happens and draw some conclusions of your own. Myself I do this >>> instead of reading alot of newspapers. Thousands of games through the years... >>> Then, when looking at a game, it's a matter of your eyes - to see and under- >>> stand what the position is all about. Then it's possible to understand why >>> in a certain position it´s "impossible" to play h3 - because you see and >>> feel that the tension in the center is what it's all about - or the importance >>> of quickly getting your knight to c5. Then you just can't think of moves like >>> h3. Talking to your pieces is good. "Hallo my little Knight on e2 - just >>> where would you like to go? Feeling good on this square? Aha, c5 nice "hole" >>> there - hm the way would be Ne2-c1-b3-c5... And what about my friend the >>> Bishop g2 just looking on the walls of pawns on e4, d5. And so on. >>> Nice game chess... >>> >>> Sune >>> >>> >>> >>This is just the kind of reasonning that take us to defeat against computers. >>Positional considerations about what to do "in general" but not -maybe- looking >>hard enough to tactic resources hidden in a combinaton between 5 or 10 moves. >>Once and again I lose games because I expend 95% of my time understanding the >>position and only 5% looking at what the bloody monster can muster against me. >>To become a 2300 player is not that easy as you say it is. You need that this 5% >>expended in tactical calculations be enough accuater and deep. There is where we >>-lesser players- fail. Problem is that computer does not forgive nothing of the >>sort. Esentialy chess is -for us- a tactic game where you lose or win on tactic >>terms. If you never got in yiuth an automatic almost unconciues tactical skill >>to avoid that, youl will not get it in adulthood. It always will be a non natral >>effort prone to mistakes at each step. At leas that is my experience. I know >>more but I commit the same number -or more- tactical mistakes. >>fernando > > Yes, chess is a complex game. Hm, I forgot that tactics came very easy to > me when I started playing (much too late, I was 15). So without trainer, > focus was on openings, tactics and active play, heavily influenced by Fischer. > Never really trained endgames. Deep positional understanding? Not in my games > anyway. But this was sufficient to reach ELO 2300 in 4-5 years. No big deal. > So you may be right in "If you never got in youth an automatic almost > unconscious tactical skill, you will not get it in adulthood." And now, I´m > more interested in strategy and endgames. Still, if you give 95% of your > time and energy trying to understand the position and just 5% to tactics I > can understand your losses... Studied the games of young Radjabov in Wch Youth > 18 - Ortopesa del Mar. This boy is 12 years old! Just look at his games > against Kundin and Ghonimy! Playing so strong positional games at this age! > You really can sense the competent chesstrainer behind him... Of course this > boy will be a GM. No doubt about that. But also as an adult there are ways > of improving your chess. For example exercises like clearing the board, > putting one Knight on h1, closing your eyes and try to visualize the shortest > way for the Knight to reach a8. Or putting up a position with just a Knight > and 6-8 pawns for each side and play it out vs Fritz/Hiarcs, etc. > And having fun... > > Sune >>> Clearly you and me have different kind of minds. Are you a pro or student in some hard science perhaps? I tend to believe that there are calculators kind of minds and there are organic kind of minds. Calculators has a gift for counting beans in maths or whatever. For them is natural the "I do, he do, then I do", etc. And then we have organics, tipical in writers and I am one of them. We are slowers thinkers, not very good at counting; we tend to be good to imagine, to perceive psy patterns, etc. Our thinhking is verbal, qualitative, not quantitative. So as a rule writers tend to be louzy chess players. But of course this is just an example of merely bverbal, qualitative judgement...:-) Fernando >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>[Event "U.S Open"] >>>>[Site "U.s "] >>>>[Date "1999.12.08"] >>>>[Round "?"] >>>>[White "GM Walter Brown "] >>>>[Black "Lawrence Stevens "] >>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>[WhiteElo "2500"] >>>>[BlackElo "2046"] >>>>[ECO "D20"] >>>> >>>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 exd4 7. >>>>Bxc4 c5 8. Rc1 Nc6 9. Bb5 Nge7 10. Rxc5 Bg4 11. Qa4 O-O 12. O-O a6 13. >>>>Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Rd5 Qf6 15. Re1 Rfd8 16. Qa3 Be6 17. e5 Qe7 18. Rd6 Rd7 19. >>>>Ne4 Rad8 20. Qc5 Nxe5 21. Rxd7 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qxd7 23. Qg5 Kf8 24. Nc5 >>>>Qe7 25. Qe5 Qd6 26. Nxe6+ Qxe6 27. Qxe6 fxe6 28. Rxe6 d3 29. Re1 d2 30. >>>>Rd1 Kf7 31. Kf1 Kf6 32. Ke2 Kf5 33. Rg1 d1=Q+ 34. Rxd1 Rxd1 35. Kxd1 Kf4 >>>>36. Ke2 h6 37. h3 g6 38. b3 h5 39. Ke1 Kxf3 40. Kf1 b5 41. Kg1 g5 42. Kf1 >>>>b4 43. Kg1 g4 44. hxg4 Kxg4 45. Kg2 Kf4 0-1
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.