Originally posted by tolikcheturiComputers aren't known for their good endgame play. It requires too much strategy and long term planning.
well, tactics my dear friend is the solution! Study tactics and you will soon see your rating go up 1800 and then you can study endgame.(Endgame study is vital, but it is all about calculation, knowledge helps too but to some extent, computers for example play almost perfect ending and they suck at opening)
Why tactics? and only tactics before you ar ...[text shortened]... t class level not gm or im level)
Study tactics and soon you will see wonders in your game!😉
As for the question, I'm going to suggest studying endgame. While tactics are probably more important, they are much much more difficult to absorb than endgame. Also, at lower levels of chess, many games are decided in the endgame. Some players are so inexperienced that they can't convert a decisive advantage obtained in the middlegame. And lower level games reach the endgame more often since players are most likely to trade pieces, and are unable to use positional advantages.
Warning posting all flames and in caps is not an indication of superior intellect and male macho-ness... The reason why I attacked you, is I'm tired of random chess newbies ranting "read Kotov's books! They are great!" I snicker to myself, because I hardly understood the book the first read, it took me 4 reads just to learn anything from it and that wasn't much, and I doubt you know/understoo ...[text shortened]... IT UP! Normally I wouldn't be such an arrogant p**ck with anyone else, but because it's you...[/b]Ok. This guy just wants this and i will definately be angry now. First of of I e-mailed that message to you becaue I didnt want others to hear the swaers and if you carefully read my thread you should have noticed that I wrote the same things in the thread with a nice language. And, let's reply your thread as Kotov's Methodical thinking, so you know I read the book 🙂
The reason why you attacked me is because you have nothing to do and you are bored as hell. So what if random newbies are trying to teach something to others???.Whay does this bother you so much???Nobody even talked to you on this issue? You came first!
And do not forget this: GM Soltis says ''The best teachers are not the best players, but just interested amateurs''. So Newbies can be good at this according to GM Soltis who won the US open several times. And nobody will believe you because you didnt win anything and you are not a GM even you read the damn book that I love so much!
If you hardly understood the book when you first read, it means you are an idiot. I always understood the book but I was just being modest. There is nothing NOT TO UNDERSTAND in the book. So simple and crystal clear. I am not mentioning those who have an IQ lower than 125. They should not play chess seriously, They should pick up knitting or something else. Maybe a Starbucks Coffee Job.And play chess as fun, and never touch this book! I am surprised you even know the name!
And just for the record I have tested mine several times before... And you do not even know what I and Q represents probably. And it is ok. Not everybody has to know everything 🙂 And it took you 4 times to understand the book me only 2 times.This part is sooo funny!
And I think you are also blind too or do not know how to read English. I never confessed that ''I didnt get the book AT ALL'' as you mentioned in your non-sensical, unmethodical piece of crap you wrote. I said I never COMPLETELY understood the book. ''At all'' and ''never completely'' are totally opposite things.
And I dont know what you meant when saying ''you just did it to LOOK smart, well, isn't that cute'' What is cute? And I think you did not use the word correctly. For example ''Your gf is cute and i would like to bone her time to time if you let me 🙂'' makes perfect sense. But what is ''you just did it to LOOK smart, well, isn't that cute'' mean?? Where did you learn English?
And please explain what this paragraph means in English so that I can unerstand and BACK IT UP as you said.
''This is good, one less random chess arrogant know-it-all who knows cr*p saying "read Kotov, it will make you smart at chess!", the better. I'm glad I humbled you and owned you, and after your PM, I will show no mercy, next time if you want to say/be something semi-intelligent, BACK IT UP! Normally I wouldn't be such an arrogant p**ck with anyone else, but because it's you...[/b]''
Or just anybody? What does this paragraph is all about?
1 edit
Originally posted by ark13Ok i will anser you too I am online🙂
[b]Computers aren't known for their good endgame play. It requires too much strategy and long term planning.
What are you talking about for god's sake? Computers play almost perfect endings! And terrible openings if tyou can manage them to get out of the book early! True they cant plan like human, but human cant calculate like computers (if given enough time to those stupid machines) but with the exception of A. Alekhine who is considered to be best calculator of all time.
Originally posted by tolikcheturiYou are correct that computers play poor openings without their book. However, in most endgames computers struggle. They often can't see far enough to find progress, nor do they have the strategy and knowledge of endgame principles that humans do.
Ok i will anser you too I am online🙂
What are you talking about for god's sake? Computers play almost perfect endings! And terrible openings if tyou can manage them to get out of the book early! True they cant plan like human, but human cant calculate like computers (if given enough time to those stupid machines) but with the exception of A. Alekhine who is considered to be best calculator of all time.
1 edit
and there is not a lot of strategy involved in endgame but a lot in middlegame. I think you are confused! OR I am terribly wrong!
As I said before, computers play almost perfect endings compared to 99 oercent of human population! And that is that! And please let's drop it!
3 edits
If you give a strong chess machine 3 hours, he will not even make a minor mistake in the ending. Not even a slight inaccuraccy! Not even slight! When there are less pieces on the borad it is easy for the stupid machine to go through all the possible scenarios. Especially if you own DEEP BLUE 5.0 like I do, they will never make mistakes! ever and nevr and ever and never 🙂
or let me put this way.
2+2 is 4
and 2 +2 is not 5!
but in rare occasions (I am still talking about endgame and computers ) sometimes 2+2 is 5 and computers make mistake. Which can be avoided by giving it as much as time it wants to find the best scenario right to the end. Because 2+2 is always 4!
but in the opening and middle game 2+2 is not always 4 because of limitless scenarios (this is what makes chess the most complex game really, limitless possibilites and human creativitiy), this is where human judgement comes into play! AS tal put it, ''there are correct sacs, and mine'' and he also said ''you have to force your opponent to a dark forest where the general guidelines does not work'' and you can trick computers like this. Forcing them to a dark forest where greed doesnt pay. I hope I am more clear now! Thx
2 edits
Originally posted by tolikcheturiWhere did I say I can beat an engine? I live in the world of facts; I can't beat a reasonably good engine; engines play much better in the middlegame than in the endgame.
so you are claiming that you beat them with ease!
I dont believe you!
Yes, you're right that there's strategy in the middlegame, but there's just as much in the ending. The difference is that endgame strategy requires deeper calculation with a high level of pruning that engines are not accostumed to. Engines can play so well in the middlegame because the strategy is shorter term, and they can make up for lack of knowledge with their excellent tactical ability.
Arguing with you is clearly not going to lead to any progress. I'd do some research if I were you.
Giving engines more time isn't going to solve anything. More time doesn't solve their lack of principals, and it barely helps their calculating ability. For each additional depth, the calculation time increases exponentially. In 30 minutes the computer can calculate pretty deeply. But given 5 more hours, it can't make that much more progress.
1 edit
engines play much better in the middlegame than in the endgame.WRONG!!! and I did my research that is why i am talking so sure and writing all this damn thing. but i am stopping now since you have learly no idea what you are talking about!
Engines are just good at seeing all the possibilities with 1.000 eyes. And great tacticians! That is why! Not becasue they can understand middlegame like human! vYou just cant teach middle game to a computer!
And if you still think you are right, may god help you! and go see ''game over'' Kasparov's latest movie where GM's talk about this issue and blah balh balh blah! you seem to not get me!
Originally posted by tolikcheturiYou haven't proven anything to me. All you've done is put words in my mouth, babbel incomprehensibly, and refer to sources of "research" that you haven't cited. I'm not a stubborn person at all, but the only thing you've proven to me so far is that you don't know how to prove something.
WRONG!!! and I did my research that is why i am talking so sure and writing all this damn thing. but i am stopping now since you have learly no idea what you are talking about!
Engines are just good at seeing all the possibilities with 1.000 eyes. And great tacticians! That is why! Not becasue they can understand middlegame like human! vYou just ca ...[text shortened]... latest movie where GM's talk about this issue and blah balh balh blah! you seem to not get me!
You've just told me that engines are excellent tacticians and see all possibilities, but are poor middlegame players. It speaks for itself.
I repeat again: Endgame involves longterm strategy that's out of a computer's depth, and basic principles which computers don't posess much of.
Originally posted by tolikcheturiI don't think I took it to "extreme seriousness". And regardless, it's impossible to tell what is a joke and what isn't when you're reading the written word.
so you are claiming that you beat them with ease!
I dont believe you!
that was kinda joke u took it to extreme seriousness. bye dear fried.catch you later!