TopNotch wrote on 05/20/08 at 02:31:41:
I suspect when gipc made this comment he probably meant that he let his chess engines run for an extended time. His comment that White has no attack on the Queenside tells me that he lacks a sense of danger, is inexperienced and relies too much on silicon assistance.
Forgive me for harping on this silicon dependance thing so often, but I can recognise the symptoms rather quickly. I gather by his own admission that GIPC is a correspondence chessplayer, and because in that form of the game one need not rely solely on ones wits, a sense of danger and intuitive feeling is never fully developed. Players that fall into this category usually require a careful analysis of every single possibility to make sense of what is going on on the board, it is possible for such an approach to reap rewards in the very long run, particularly when allowed to compete with assistance, but I think it's very unlikely that one will ever become a good player relying on this approach, unless you are a computer.
Oh I suppose that broadly, I agree. I don't think anyone can be a good player, even at CC, solely on the basis of CC experience, for precisely the reasons that you give. Actually I would have said that even before the Rise of Silicon, since having vast amounts of time to analyze does not do much to hone the kinds of judgement that you're talking about.
But you seem to suggest that CC is bad for a player's game, and I don't think it is. You learn a lot from analyzing positions deeply, and CC is one excuse to do that. At least the CC player perforce devotes his study time not only to openings, which is a weakness in the chess study of many players. CC games are very often decided in the ending, and I think that CC play is a pretty good vehicle for learning that phase of the game.
Fundamentally I think that the best way to improve at chess is to encounter numerous, and many different sorts of, positions and to think about them deeply -- best is actual play (I suppose because it so intensely focusses the mind), but we all know that you can to this by yourself to some extent. Very typically, one wins when one understands the position on the board better than one's opponent, wouldn't you agree? This judgement of which you speak, and which I fully agree is critical to one's playing strength, seems to me to be the expression of a great deal of assimilated experience. So I would not be so quick as you are to criticise a pursuit that brings players into intimate contact with so many chess positions.
Against that, I do agree, that if someone trusts too much in silicon he will learn much less than he would if he analyzed without it. I will also agree that extensive play OTB is the only satisfactory way to acquire the game.
Two more things. First, I would point out that these days, you see even OTB players unduly influenced by too much trust in computerized evaluation. Not only CC players use silicon to aid their studies.
Second, even before computers there was a certain kind of player who was willing to believe that a bad position was a good one for his side, or an equal position was a winning one for his side, simply because he could analyze it out and "prove" his side of it. You could argue in vain with these types, pull out any move you like, and they would always pull out a rejoinder and claim the truth of their side. I've been involved in plenty of group analyses that simply became impossible because these types would never step back and say, "Here Side X is obviously better." I mean, haven't you encountered these people? This is a weakness in many people's approach to the game, I think, that predates silicon.
Pages: 
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 Nc6 4.Nf3 (Read 12771 times)
