I share this interesting interview:
www.facebook.com/mundoajedrez/videos/2102589059825127/
Any opinion or improvement is welcome.
www.facebook.com/mundoajedrez/videos/2102589059825127/
Any opinion or improvement is welcome.
Thank you for the link. Any video promoting chess in the mainstream shows is good for chess.
Some people don't like Maurice's 'engine says it wasn't smooth' comments. And some don't like his style, but I really like the way he used to commentate. Listen to him bring this thriller to life.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUr_gdKQ8j4
Some people don't like Maurice's 'engine says it wasn't smooth' comments. And some don't like his style, but I really like the way he used to commentate. Listen to him bring this thriller to life.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUr_gdKQ8j4
Damn I had no idea Maurice has been commentating at a high level for so long ...
Honestly, though, I prefer the St. Louis Chess Club's commentary with the engine as a important piece (also, Yasser is just awesome), compared to FIDE or chess.com's coverage where the engine is a bad thing to be sat in the corner.
The engine will tell you a variation but it will do nothing for you to understand the position better. No offense but there are stronger grandmasterss than Maurice Ashley and if you listen to i.e. Peter Svidler commentating you will notice that he is stronger because of this deeper understanding. He is also able to convey the positional essence whereas Maurice Ashleys style of commentating IMHO relies too much on hyping things and computer variations which are taken at face value.
20 years ago Kasparow relied heavily on computers calculating opening moves for him in preparation and along came Kramnik and showed how this is tackled: the Berlin Wall he played was solely chosen because there is virtually no calclulation invloved, just weighing of positional nuances. Of course, computers became a lot stronger in these years but the basic tenet still holds: they may calculate even better than back then but they still don't know anything about chess itself.
I was analyzing a game with a friend of mine - strong grandmaster - and asked him what i should have done. His explanation was like "you have a strong square here and a weak square there, this piece belongs to here and this one to there. The black plan is like this and he has these three methods to put it to work whereas white has these three methods to prevent that and the struggle is about can black do it or white prevent it".
At this moment i understood why i have 2000 and he has 2600. Of course he knows more opening theory and of course he calculates far better - but at its core he has a much better understanding of what he is doing. With one or two very short illustrative variations he explained the essence of the position to me to a point where i was able to calculate on my own because i knew what to look for. No number of computer variations can do that for you.
To understand modern top grandmasters fights you need this froma commentator, at least if you are not a grandmaster yourself. If i want a computer analysis i could switch on my own.
krasnaya
20 years ago Kasparow relied heavily on computers calculating opening moves for him in preparation and along came Kramnik and showed how this is tackled: the Berlin Wall he played was solely chosen because there is virtually no calclulation invloved, just weighing of positional nuances. Of course, computers became a lot stronger in these years but the basic tenet still holds: they may calculate even better than back then but they still don't know anything about chess itself.
I was analyzing a game with a friend of mine - strong grandmaster - and asked him what i should have done. His explanation was like "you have a strong square here and a weak square there, this piece belongs to here and this one to there. The black plan is like this and he has these three methods to put it to work whereas white has these three methods to prevent that and the struggle is about can black do it or white prevent it".
At this moment i understood why i have 2000 and he has 2600. Of course he knows more opening theory and of course he calculates far better - but at its core he has a much better understanding of what he is doing. With one or two very short illustrative variations he explained the essence of the position to me to a point where i was able to calculate on my own because i knew what to look for. No number of computer variations can do that for you.
To understand modern top grandmasters fights you need this froma commentator, at least if you are not a grandmaster yourself. If i want a computer analysis i could switch on my own.
krasnaya
@rickrenegade #2
Fantastic video! Daniel King and Maurice Ashley form an explosive duo.
Fantastic video! Daniel King and Maurice Ashley form an explosive duo.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.