- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24972
Originally posted by Fat LadyYes ideed. I think far too much emphasis is put on all these so called positional concepts. Chess is all about vision, what you can see and Morphy saw just about more than anyone. The game is really just one long tactical process.
That, my friend, is complete and utter bollocks!
3 edits
Originally posted by Talismani wonder then why Emmanuel Lasker, an old school player wrote the following in his book manual of chess
Yes ideed. I think far too much emphasis is put on all these so called positional concepts. Chess is all about vision, what you can see and Morphy saw just about more than anyone. The game is really just one long tactical process.
Chess rules and exercises - 5 hours
Elementary endings - 5 hours
Some openings - 10 hours
Combination - 20 hours
Positional play - 40 hours
Practical play with analysis - 120 hours
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving. "
-- Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess
why does he devote double the amount of time to positional concepts, and six times to practical play and analysis, that's right because its just one long tactical process? isn't it! if only he had known, just think what he would have been able to achieve, world champion perhaps!
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat, my friend, is complete and utter bollocks! 🙂
Chess rules and exercises - 5 hours
Elementary endings - 5 hours
Some openings - 10 hours
Combination - 20 hours
Positional play - 40 hours
Practical play with analysis - 120 hours
""Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]."
- Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess
Seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
2 edits
Originally posted by diskamyland how would you know my friend, that's correct, because you know bollocks when you see it. are we seriously to consider that you therefore are stating that one of the greatest minds and chess players of all time did not know what he was talking ????, no sir, that truly is one hundred percent, pure unadulterated condensed bollocks!
That, my friend, is complete and utter bollocks! 🙂
Seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell it's pretty obvious. Let's say that a complete beginner, "young person with no special talents" studies chess 1 hour a day exactly the way Lasker suggests. That makes 200 days of study according to his program, and supposedly it would be enough for "playing on a par with masters." That's less than 7 months.
and how would you know my friend, that's correct, because you know bollocks when you see it. are we seriously to consider that you therefore are stating that one of the greatest minds and chess players of all time did not know what he was talking ????, no sir, that truly is one hundred percent, pure unadulterated condensed bollocks!
come on, now. not every single statement a chess great makes has to be correct. Kasparov says deep blue cheated, steinitz said he would win against god, etc. Lasker's claim should be no different to any patzer who has experienced being a patzer.
2 edits
Originally posted by diskamylyes it would seem so on the surface, but perhaps Lasker was talking about someone under his tutorship, even so i am willing to concede that , it would be quite unusual unless the student had a special aptitude, however this was not the point, and its unfortunate that you picked up on that my friend, and i hope that it does not overshadow or even negate the point of interest which was the proportions that he gives for the different areas of study! why are positional concepts, termed 'so called', if that's not what they are, perhaps they are masquerading as something else, i dunno, its this completely one dimensional approach which really baffles me, and yes some have very strong opinions , but so did the Nazis, that did not make them correct did it!
well it's pretty obvious. Let's say that a complete beginner, "young person with no special talents" studies chess 1 hour a day exactly the way Lasker suggests. That makes 200 days of study according to his program, and supposedly it would be enough for "playing on a par with masters." That's less than 7 months.
come on, now. not every single statement ...[text shortened]... Lasker's claim should be no different to any patzer who has experienced being a patzer.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe best chess engines are basically brute force calculation and tactics and they kick the crap out of the best players.
yes it would seem so on the surface, but perhaps Lasker was talking about someone under his tutorship, even so i am willing to concede that , it would be quite unusual unless the student had a special aptitude, however this was not the point, and its unfortunate that you picked up on that my friend, and i hope that it does not overshadow or even nega ...[text shortened]... some have very strong opinions , but so did the Nazis, that did not make them correct did it!
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232yes, and your point is caller? let me ask you, do you think like a machine? imagine and create like a machine, perhaps you play chess like a machine? are you a conglomeration of ones and zeros? is your chess hero a machine, no,? then double concentrated bollocks to this my friend, southern fried, with extra chili sauce! 😛
The best chess engines are basically brute force calculation and tactics and they kick the crap out of the best players.
on a more serious note, i have a little chess computer which plays at my level 1500, it has a data base of 300 grandmaster games and about 20 deep blue games, the first one hundred games are Fischers games, the second one hundred are Karpovs games, the third one hundred are Kasparovs games and the last twenty deep blue/deep thought.
there is a function in which you can try to guess the grandmasters moves, generally on Fischers games i can get in the high seventies sometimes eighties, Karpov im lucky if i get sixty percent, Kasparov i despair at and deep blue is hopeless, i was just wondering why Fischers games are so playable, i suppose the openings are very easy, his repertoire is very narrow and his chess is beautifully simple, Karpov , i dunno, he just has a completely different style and is beautiful in its own way, Kasparov is too dynamic and beyond me and deep blue like you say just brute force and tactics.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, my point is that no matter what we do the game is tactics... Positional concepts are just a more efficient way to get to the same result. And behind all positional considerations there are tactics. No matter what we do tactics are there and we have to think about them.
yes, and your point is caller? let me ask you, do you think like a machine? imagine and create like a machine, perhaps you play chess like a machine? are you a conglomeration of ones and zeros? is your chess hero a machine, no,? then double concentrated bollocks to this my friend, southern fried, with extra chili sauce! 😛
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo not forget when Lasker wrote that chess was different from nowadays.No engines and much less opening theory.
i wonder then why Emmanuel Lasker, an old school player wrote the following in his book manual of chess
Chess rules and exercises - 5 hours
Elementary endings - 5 hours
Some openings - 10 hours
Combination - 20 hours
Positional play - 40 hours
Practical play with analysis - 120 hours
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, ...[text shortened]... ly he had known, just think what he would have been able to achieve, world champion perhaps!
I wouldn't discard it as total rubbish though,just add more tactical training and maybe alter the expectation.What is considered masterlevel anyway?2200?
Originally posted by tomtom232lol, what about the second part, why are Fishers games easier to emulate?
No, my point is that no matter what we do the game is tactics... Positional concepts are just a more efficient way to get to the same result. And behind all positional considerations there are tactics. No matter what we do tactics are there and we have to think about them.