Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:52:45 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2000 at 04:41:32, Alvaro Polo wrote:
>On February 09, 2000 at 16:51:29, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>On February 09, 2000 at 15:49:48, C Morris wrote:
>>
>>>Quoting from pg. 289 of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", David Bronstein says "I
>>>think computers have simply exposed man and shown that he has become conceited.
>>>Grandmasters are convinced that they know how to play chess. But is this really
>>>so?" Profound insight from a great world class chessplayer.
>>
>>Could be true, but it isn't the computer's fault, nor is it necessarily the
>>programmer's. Taken at face value, the computers can be useful tools even for
>>the strongest players, can improve the play of the vast majority of players, and
>>can sometimes make anyone sweat.
>>
>>It's also fun to watch them play against each other.
>>
>
>I agree with everything except that they can improve the play of most people. I
>believe that the play of most people is unimprovable by any means, after some
>years of practice. Of course there will always be exceptions, and possibly you
>can improve a little through titanic efforts, but generally speaking, my
>experience and the experience of most chessplayers that I know is that you don't
>improve significantly no matter what you try.
>
>Alvaro
>
>>bruce
I completely disagree. I think any player can improve at any age up to a certain
level. Mind you, that level for me starts at 2200. The biggest problem is in HOW
you train. I have seen all kinds of nonsense of studying in chess (which no
doubt carries over to other disciplines as well), but one of the most important
aspects is to push yourself. I was once studying some positions with a friend
and we had set ourselves 10 minutes to come up with the solution. At the time we
were only 2nd category players, but the solution should have been within our
range as its source was a tactical book destined for players rated 2000-2200.
True this was beyond our rating, but that only meant more time would be required
as far as we were concerned. 10 minutes passed and no complete solution was
forthcoming. We both agreed on the first 2-3 moves of the line but had trouble
taking it to the end. My friend wanted to look at the solution, but I refused.
"Why?", he asked. "We'll never finish the book at this rate." I told him that my
goal wasn't to finish the book, but to learn what I could. My friend agreed and
never brought it up again, but the point is, you have to push yourself hard. If
you do, I see no reason you won't progress. Calculating in chess is an exercise
in visualization, and this needs to be developed the most. The only way to do
this is to constantly try to see a little further. Got lost? Start the line over
to re-imprint it in your mind. He takes, I take, he takes,... ok, what have I
got? Try to locate the various pieces. Even if you can't at first, the effort
will eventually pay-off. I tend to think that many people are lazy about
studying and when they do, they don't try to push so hard. They'll just play
over some openings or some games with little real effort involved except reading
and moving the pieces around. Just my $0.02 on the matter.
Albert Silver
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.