I think teaching chess is obviously a passion with some people. Like Pandolfini, for example. I enjoy his books, and the interesting thing is he always comes up with a new spin or angle in every book. You know, chess as target practice, traps and zaps, etc.,
I think he is searching for the perfect way to impart his knowledge to others, but my question for the philosophical amoung us is this: Do you think anyone will ever come up with a perfect way of teaching the game? My opinion is that it will not happen, although I look forward to the day when they can hook us up to a machine, and all chess knowledge will be automaticly downloaded into our brain, but until that day, what do you think of the subject?
On a related subject, is it correct to teach the endgame first, as in the old school, or should one start at the beginning with the opening? My thought on that has always been this: If you teach someone the endgame first, what the *** good will it do if the poor slob never reaches the endgame because he is continually being creamed in the opening, never reaching the middle game? From that standpoint, isn't it more logical to start at the opening, teach him how to devastate his opponents in the opening and middle game, and not have to worry about the end game till later? Besides, end game theory is voluminous and encyclopedic, and he could spend YEARS wading through it!
(BTW, in case you are wondering, I personally love the end game, but my preferences are beside the question.)
It's really a catch 22, when you come right down to it. The old chicken or the egg question, if you ask me.
Well, naturally perfection in everything is an unrealistic goal. The perfect way of teaching would be 100% transfer of knowledge over. If it was possible to download how to play chess from a computer, the appeal in learning the game and improving will be lost.
If we all could become grandmasters so easily, what then? Would there be any point at all? 🙂
Originally posted by lauseyI believe that chess skill is not a poor knowledge. Could not prove it, but I'm sure that transfer of all Kasparov's chess knowledge to my brain, will not make me player of his caliber😀
Well, naturally perfection in everything is an unrealistic goal. The perfect way of teaching would be 100% transfer of knowledge over. If it was possible to download how to play chess from a computer, the appeal in learning the game and im ...[text shortened]... ters so easily, what then? Would there be any point at all? 🙂
I think what he means is, is it possible for someone of uber intelligence, or even a computer for that matter, to completely solve chess and find a mating variation in say, 25-30 moves, that automaticly wins regardless of play.
Personally, I don't think chess is like other games, were you can monopolize it with the same strategy. The closest I can think to chess ever being monopolized, was in the 1920's-1940's, in the opening I play, as White, the queen's gambit. Yes, I know a lot of people hate this, and are perhabs even tired of it, but you have to realize for up to 20 years, this "gambit" did actually monopolize chess, it made up like 95% of GM games, with white winning almost everytime.
It's not much of a gambit, because no matter what black plays, he cannot keep the pawn. And there we have it folks, a possible chess monopoly on the horizon to come? Would that spell the end of chess? No, through a lot of work and dedication, thanks to the hypermodem school who deserves special recognition, the Indian systems were adopted, then the dutch, to name a few, the Benomi is also kinda useful.
But do understand, the queen's gambit nearly ended chess, and even today, it is still a very sound opening and I can't see how it can ever reaches the sickbed in the future, like the king's gambit (no pun intended to king's gambiteers).
This is why I play the queen's gambit, and I recommend it to everyone, it avoids a lot of complications and possibilities that can arise from e4, c4, or f4.
Originally posted by lauseyWhich no human of any intelligence could possibly acheive. Maybe a Vulcan could? 😛
Well, to basically determain that, you would have to determain every single possible combination from beginning to end.
That is one erm.....hell of a big number! 😀
No seriously, a computer might someday, but nowadays, not a chance, most of our advanced computers around are only about even with the greatest human players. No machine that calculates a million or so silly variations a move, has been able to monopolize the game. In fact, a serious problem with computers today is they waste time considering the most rediculous of moves and using no creativity, and that's when the best human sharks beat them. 😀
Which really begs to wonder, how could someone invent this purely mathematical strategy game, 1000 or so years ago, with no auto winning solution, all by themselves or with a few people of that era? Begs to wonder if they didn't have help from a few aliens. And remember, nobody knows exactly how chess was created. 😀
When I was little, I taught myself how to play chess. The first thing I did was play against my little brother and pretended I knew how the pieces moved without actually knowing how the pieces really move. It was interesting because as a little kid just imagining how the game might be played, I remember saying that the king was the most powerful piece on the board and could move five spaces at a time, just so long as the 5 spaces were all different and not the same two spaces over and over again. The queen could move 4 spaces. The bishop, 3. The knight, 2. The rook, 2 and over friendly pieces. And all the pawns could move only 1, and the object was to take all the opponent's pieces.
That's what I learned first. 🙂
If you ever try playing like that, it's really stupid.
Originally posted by mateuloseAnother advantage that a computer may have though is in the process of going through all the silly moves, it could come across a really clever move that a human being would not even consider, because it is "apparently" a stupid set of moves.
Which no human of any intelligence could possibly acheive. Maybe a Vulcan could? 😛
No seriously, a computer might someday, but nowadays, not a chance, most of our advanced computers around are only about even with the greatest human p ...[text shortened]... iens. And remember, nobody knows exactly how chess was created. 😀
Maybe a computer would discover that 1.a3 leads to very clever strategic play. Something that a human being would never think of as they would never think of 1.a3 to be anywhere near a good move.
A human wouldn't go through all these combinations because they would believe it is a complete waste of time. A computer would just churn through them without any "second thought".