ReneDescartes wrote on 03/25/21 at 17:18:23:
Capablanca describes the highest level of chess skill as the ability to look at a position (unclear to most players) and say for example that it is won and that it is won for this reason and in such-and-such a way.
We have all see the fortresses where despite the material advantage of rook, queen, or more, there is no way in and therefore no way to win. So Capablanca's observation is on one level merely a truism: the only advantage that actually exists is the one that you can exploit. Or shall we say a static evaluation is at best a first pass, and a dynamic evaluation, incorporating the
way, is required to get at the truth of a position. (But I will return to this idea at the end.)
ReneDescartes wrote on 03/25/21 at 17:18:23:
He attributes this highest level of professional skill to only three players alive in 1938--himself, Lasker, and Botvinnik (probably we can add Alekhine ourselves).
I don't think there was any limit to Capablanca's self-regard: Whatever it is that constitutes Capablanca's skill is by definition the highest kind; pity the fool who wishes to emulate Alekhine instead.
- Lasker I won't analyze because for generations he has baffled greater minds than mine.
- Capablanca claimed that his thinking was intuitive. Despite my suspicions that he actually did study, I don't have direct evidence of it, so I will tentatively allow the claim.
- Alekhine clearly had a different thinking process. But, just as you suggest, his dynamic (sic) style definitely included a strong dose of the such-and-such a way which Capablanca valued. I think the difference was that Alekhine applied greater control over the ends of his planning.
- Botvinnik also applied Capablanca's method, but arguably arrived at the discrete ways not through a Capablanca-like intuition but by careful home study of middlegames that might arise from his openings.
Let's not forget that every world champion has the opportunity to learn from their great predecessors, with a particular emphasis on the one they need to defeat in a match. Capablanca recognized this in Botvinnik, but to my mind Alekhine's achievement in the period 1924-1927 in adapting his own style to defeating Capablanca was also impressive. Only Capablanca's enormous ego prevented him from acknowledging it. My conclusion is that this skill identified by Capablanca is not a binary asset in the sense that a master has it or doesn't have it. It's available to all strong players and they use it more or less. Possibly as Capablanca suggests masters can be graded primarily on how well they have or use this skill. Or possibly Capablanca was all wet and there are other valuable skills -- in which case masters should be graded on how well they choose which skill to apply, according to the requirements of the position in front of them.
ReneDescartes wrote on 03/25/21 at 17:18:23:
The point is that even though evaluation can be separated somewhat from calculation (by considering what happens at end nodes of the latter), evaluation cannot be separated from strategy.
I wouldn't separate evaluation from either one.
ReneDescartes wrote on 03/25/21 at 17:18:23:
Of course, there are rough heuristics like comparing king exposure, the activity of each piece, development tempi, and so on, but fundamentally you have to know what you can do in a position to evaluate it effectively.
Computers in theory think quite differently and one might say they arrive at the
what you can do part from the opposite end of the tree. In practice certain types of positions are more amenable to this computer-like analytic leaf-to-root evaluation than the Capablanca-like intuitive root-to-leaf evaluation. And then there are positions, like the fortresses mentioned above, which cannot be solved
at all using the computer's approach.
Analysing like a computer is what the Russians would call playing "move-by-move" and it's a vital skill for masters. I think Alekhine was ahead of his time in bringing about these types of positions, when his opponents would not only not know why he wanted to do that, but also did not know that it required them to change their thinking. But he was hampered somewhat by an over-reliance on classical openings. It's easy to criticise this approach (Huebner labeled it "lack of objectivity"), but if it was deliberate then I don't see why it would be more objectionable than, say, Lasker's overtly psychological play (assuming Reti's analysis of Lasker was correct).
Pages: 1
Books on Evaluation of Positions (Read 4251 times)
