18-07-2013, 12:17 PM
Oh I know what you mean Geoff. I've been in some positions OTB where if I had from that point followed computer suggestions then I would have certainly lost, whereas playing the moves I played made it more likely my opponent would mess it up. That comes under your definition of "practical", I should think. 8)
Totally agree with you on that point.
But I don't agree that computers have done more harm than good from a training perspective on the whole. It depends how they are used. I mean, if someone looks through their games exlusively with a computer and doesn't do any work on it themselves then yes, this probably won't make them a better player. But I really think the people who do that probably know this anyway. They are more curious about whether they missed something or not, or whether their game was technically drawn/won/lost etc.
You suggest that the promising juniors around the 2200 level are not becoming titled players because they are too reliant on computers. But I would suggest that the average quality of players has increased since the introduction of computers. Perhaps it's harder to become a GM now than it ever has been, because the quality of opposition is higher per grading point? Or perhaps not. In any case, I really doubt computers are the reason for it. Used correctly as part of a balanced diet, computers are more likely to make players stronger.
Totally agree with you on that point.
But I don't agree that computers have done more harm than good from a training perspective on the whole. It depends how they are used. I mean, if someone looks through their games exlusively with a computer and doesn't do any work on it themselves then yes, this probably won't make them a better player. But I really think the people who do that probably know this anyway. They are more curious about whether they missed something or not, or whether their game was technically drawn/won/lost etc.
You suggest that the promising juniors around the 2200 level are not becoming titled players because they are too reliant on computers. But I would suggest that the average quality of players has increased since the introduction of computers. Perhaps it's harder to become a GM now than it ever has been, because the quality of opposition is higher per grading point? Or perhaps not. In any case, I really doubt computers are the reason for it. Used correctly as part of a balanced diet, computers are more likely to make players stronger.