Originally posted by zakkwyldermuahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahahaa😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵
Maybe its just me, but I didn't get any of that. The distinguished lack of punctuation turned what might have been an intelligent statement, into what looks like html code. Maybe you should give up chess and start programming computers to have a better endgame.
Thanks for a good discussion, guys. Again I want to say that I don´t think chessplayers should skip studying the endgame alltogether. There are some basics that one needs to know, especially in rook endgames as they are the most common ones.
An example of this is rook and king vs rook, king and pawn. This setup often seems complex but after covering the basics here it really isn´t that complexed. For example you should know what is the difference of having the pawn on the g-file instead of the f-file in certain positions. What´s the difference between an active rook vs passive rook, defending from the side, defending from the back etc.
In my opinion, and I think most will aggree with me, I think that most time should be spent on middlegame and tactics, then the endgame and openings.
Engines simply don't understand endgames very well. That's why tablebases were created, so that the engine could know what to do. It's true that they can calculate until the cows come home, which is why they are so stron in the middle game. They don't understand middlegame strategy, except by evaluating positions based on their pre-defined criteria. However, their ability to calculate makes the middlegame their strongest area because they can spot very subtle tactical mistakes. As far as openings, they play openings like GM's as long as you stay in the book. If you step out of book, you are very likely (not certainly, but likely) making a mistake that they will find. Just my $0.02. Hope it contributes.
Originally posted by BLReidI disagree. Fruit 2.2 is currently one of the strongest engines available, and it doesn’t yet make use of tablebases. And when I say one of the strongest, this includes it’s endgame play. Also, it seems to me that programs such as Shredder, Fritz, etc. are becoming quite mature in terms of their endgame technique for opposite coloured bishops, use of passed pawns, etc.
Engines simply don't understand endgames very well. That's why tablebases were created, so that the engine could know what to do.
I’m not suggesting that computers are stronger in the endgame relative to their other play. However, I’m not convinced of the opposite either. Can anyone nominate an endgame from the current world championship where computer analysis shows that “engines simply don’t understand endgames very well”?
V.
Originally posted by MetalPigComputers can play to at least GM level. So, are you saying that it’s possible to play at such a high level without the play showing any evidence of strategy?
tactics is all they can do.
I guess this may be a terminology issue. Does a 30 ply search result in the computer finding “very deep tactics” or “strategy”? If a human decided to try to create a passed pawn and push it down the board, many would consider that to be a plan or strategy. If the computer’s deep search results in finding the same line, then what are you going to call it? Surely it has to be a computer generated strategy. Otherwise there’s no such thing as strategy and everything is tactics. In which case, computers are good at very deep tactics.
V.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe computer will only make the sac if it sees far enough ahead to be able to justify it with a material gain or a forced win. If that is 30 moves deep, so be it. It isn't a sacrifice if the outcome is pre-determined. As far as creating a passed pawn, the engine will strive to make the passed pawn because the programmers have told it that passed pawns have value. This isn't strategy...it's following rules. Even top flight GM's can't see 30 moves deep all the time, so when they make such moves, it is based on experience and intuition. That's the difference between strategy and calculation. I don't think it will be long though before the raw calculating power will be so overwhelming that the top humans simply won't be able to compete anymore with the machines. And thanks for the info on endgame ability...I was not aware that they had made that much progress...I guess I should read more before presuming to know anything.
Computers can play to at least GM level. So, are you saying that it’s possible to play at such a high level without the play showing any evidence of strategy?
I guess this may be a terminology issue. Does a 30 ply search result in the computer finding “very deep tactics” or “strategy”? If a human decided to try to create a passed pawn and push it down ...[text shortened]... rategy and everything is tactics. In which case, computers are good at very deep tactics.
V.
Originally posted by BLReid>> The computer will only make the sac if it sees far enough ahead to be able to justify it with a material gain or a forced win.
I don’t agree. Engines such as Gambit Tiger and Junior 9 are noted for their “positional” sacrificial play where their evaluation function tries to determine if the compensation is adequate (in terms of king safety, active pieces, etc), in addition to the search. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong. Comp vs comp games with such engines often highlight this. If it was just based on search alone, they wouldn’t get it wrong as often.
>> This isn't strategy...it's following rules.
As I mentioned before, maybe we just use different terminology. If in a given position, the players have castled opposite sides and they each decide to pawn storm their opponent’s king… would you define this as a strategy? If so, I guess the players have at some point in their learning been told of such a strategy. So, if a programmer adds similar knowledge/code to his program why does it then become a “rule” and not a strategy?
>> I should read more before presuming to know anything
Not at all. I’m no expert in these matters either. I like to discuss in order to learn more. Thanks for your input.
V.
Originally posted by thbThey are won, lost or drawn when you get to the endgame assuming you know how to play it accurately. There is a ton of room for throwing the game from a supposedly "won" endgame because you know it should be won, but haven't studied it and can't get it right. I know this from first hand experience.
my feeling is that the majority of the games are decided in the middle game and are normally won or lost (or dead draw) when it reaches the endgame.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think this is the most amusing thread I have ever encountered too, I want to thank Tolikcheturi for his enthusiasm to create such great discussion and also his patience for pathetic Verenka who clearly has no idea who he is and definately has any clue what he is talking about. From my OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE : He thinks trying to dominate others (such as Tolikcheturi) original and good ideas will make him the smartest, most mature and skillful person/chess player. It is interesting he is NOW defending his ideas after getting ignored by him after showing him his nasty side. I first wrote on this thread because I was disturbed by such childish behaviour of Verenka by publicizing Tolikcheturi's unfortunate and angry PM sent to him. Today, I turn on my computer and it is all gone. Only good and smart things that Verenka has written on this thread are available to read.
This is the most amusing thread I have ever encountered in the Chess forum. Well done.
These may be my favorite lines:
"For the record, I go after hot/sexy women"
"[I] do not think you are homo or pshco or anything...we are sharing ideas!"
I am certainly disgusted by this. Since his offensive threads are gone, I agree that Tolikcheturi's '' do not think you are homo or pshco or anything...we are sharing ideas!" comment look absolutely ridicolous. I witnessed he commented this right after Verenka has accused him of being homosexual and schizophrenic psycho on one of his threads just because Tolikcheturi tried to defend his chess ideas with great energy and dauntless patience. So Mr. Verenka just got upset that he could beat this guy with his ideas and started to write offensive (including personal insults) threads. This is all I want to comment about this thread.
Also one more harrowing thing that Verenka has shown me and my real SUBJECTIVE OPINION about this issue is ''I do not even eat a Greek Salad because it is a poor idea to make such crappy salad thanks to Greeks some people are forced fed by this. Even the word Greek, I do not like'' and I am not even racist just a discriminist.
Yesterday, tolikcheturi has sent me a challange through some of threads. I accepted and fired a challange (including a PM), he does not reply and I do not see his comments on the threads anymore. Please inform me about this if anybody knows anything about it. I am so surprised that he did not fight back for his ideas today on this very thread (and any). Please PM me or just answer on this thread if you know anything about this issue because I want to play this guy since I have accused him of being a terrible chess player.😞
Tactics are 90% of chess skill! Endgame is 5%. Positional strategy 4% and Opening lines 1%. If you are weak in any one of these, you can have a weaker rating even if you have tactical skill. For example, I managed to score 1850 on my knowledge of tactics in KILLER CHESS TACTICS by Skamkovich, Keres and another GM. I forget the third one. I was befuddled. How could I possibly score 1850 from the tests? I did manage to find the first move for most of the puzzles, and in many instances, found all the tactical lines in a good many puzzles. I felt excited! But, as you can see from my redhotpawn.com rating, I hover around 1400 ELO on here, and that's probably comparable to a 1300 USCF. It is a mystery how I could be so good at tactics and have such a lower rating strength. But, I have figured it out. Positional strategy is 4%. You have to set up those combinations. Opening theory and opening lines are all important. If you do not know the lines, you cannot overcome a player who knows by instinct theoretically proven lines. So, all of the latter is important when concerning the strength of a player.
Originally posted by powershakerI agree with your general idea that all aspects are important. I have to disagree with your statement that openings are only 1%. You make your case based on your RHP rating. You need to understand that opening moves account for a much higher percentage of your rating in correspondence chess, as it is allowed to use databases and opening books to formulate your move. I don't use databases, except for seeing where my opening went wrong after the fact. This puts me at a considerable disadvantage to the player who makes use of these tools, at least in the opening. This is my choice, and I have no issue with that, but the point is that, if I am roughly equal tactical ability to another player...and they use databases, then their rating will be considerably higher than mine. Just some thoughts for you to consider.
Tactics are 90% of chess skill! Endgame is 5%. Positional strategy 4% and Opening lines 1%. If you are weak in any one of these, you can have a weaker rating even if you have tactical skill. For example, I managed to score 1850 on my knowledge of tactics in KILLER CHESS TACTICS by Skamkovich, Keres and another GM. I forget the third one. I was befu ...[text shortened]... ally proven lines. So, all of the latter is important when concerning the strength of a player.
Originally posted by thbIt depends on your level of skill. I think that once you become good enough to need endgame skill you'll naturally want to study it. So in general, I'd suggest ignoring it until you start making it to the endgame regularly unless you're curious about it.
What do you think? Should one spend much time on this field of chess? I´m not talking about the top level here as I think the endgame becomes more important there.
I might have to check my games better but my feeling is that the majority of the games are decided in the middle game and are normally won or lost (or dead draw) when it reaches the endgame.
S ...[text shortened]... endgames at all. Some basic endgames manouvers should be known like rook vs rook and pawn etc.
Originally posted by powershakerYOU ARE JUST SO RIGHT MAN. YOU ARE TOO SMART FOR THOSE LOSERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TLKING ABOUT. I TRIED BELIEVE ME.
Tactics are 90% of chess skill! Endgame is 5%. Positional strategy 4% and Opening lines 1%. If you are weak in any one of these, you can have a weaker rating even if you have tactical skill. For example, I managed to score 1850 on my knowledge of tactics in KILLER CHESS TACTICS by Skamkovich, Keres and another GM. I forget the third one. I was befu ...[text shortened]... ally proven lines. So, all of the latter is important when concerning the strength of a player.