tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post1658646173452526721..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Who do you believe - me or the computer?Tom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-27569309863629836652009-01-23T15:48:00.000+00:002009-01-23T15:48:00.000+00:00I seem to remember that Anand once described his t...I seem to remember that Anand once described his thinking during the game as one of increasingly-fine distinctions along the lines of who is better and why. Ie, he looks at a position and goes: "white is better because of X; no, black because of Y" ---- and then repeats with increasingly subtle Xs and Ys, until he converges on the truth (or thereabouts.) I'm sure another top GM has said something similar too, although I certainly don't believe that that kind of thinking is the general rule for all top players.<BR/><BR/>I do often ask myself who is better and why during play, although the answer is usually (a) wrong or (b) "I dunno".Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-36173332919381460532009-01-23T15:39:00.000+00:002009-01-23T15:39:00.000+00:00Do people really spend time in a game thinking "wh...<I>Do people really spend time in a game thinking "who is better", rather than just "how do I improve my position"? </I><BR/><BR/>Well, it's an interesting point, isn't it? In one of Rowson's books he recalls a post mortem between (I think) Peter Wells and Stuart Conquest in which the former said "did you think you were better here?" and the latter replied "I don't have such thoughts during a game, I just try to think of ideas".<BR/><BR/>Now Rowson's not entirely sure Conquest was being totally serious, but there's certainly something to be said for just trying to find the best move rather than trying to assess the position as if you were doling out Informator symbols, and of these things is that it might help avoid the habit of over-estimating one's own position.<BR/><BR/>As far the opposite-coloured bishop ending is concerned - you might very well be right and Fritz wrong. I don't trust the computer's judgement in endings at all, unless it's down to a tablebase position: in the course of analysing correspondence games I've seen computers produce the most bizarre misjudgements. I can remember it offering about +3.70 for a line in <A HREF="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/07/won-one.html" REL="nofollow">this game </A> which I could see very well was entirely drawn (rook on h8 and h-pawn against rook). Had I followed its recommendations I would have thrown away a half-point after a year's hard work. So beware!ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-54417777589245561442009-01-23T11:13:00.000+00:002009-01-23T11:13:00.000+00:00Fritz often does this to me; I've concluded that I...Fritz often does this to me; I've concluded that I'm not clever enough for it to matter unless it's at least +/-2.<BR/><BR/>Fritz thinks I was about +1.1 last night in an opposite coloured bish ending a pawn up, though I've no idea how I could've won it.<BR/><BR/>Do people really spend time in a game thinking "who is better", rather than just "how do I improve my position"? <BR/><BR/>Adam #2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-51111907206533707382009-01-23T11:02:00.000+00:002009-01-23T11:02:00.000+00:00I think that Rybka gives points for both space an...I think that Rybka gives points for both space and bishops both of which were white's earlier in the game. Playing ... c5 is one of black's few active plans and I suppose white should have been better prepared for it.<BR/><BR/>RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com