lichess.org
Donate

Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy

This human being claims that we would play better chess if we do concrete analysis of positions than if we just follow principles or if we follow theories.

Do you think he is right? Do you know any authoritative chess personality who supports his claims? It would be a huge discovery for me if this is really true.
Maybe you haven't understood the book completely? It is about how you cannot rely on the classical principles alone in modern chess, how the game has evolved since Nimzowitsch's "My system". Kasparov's understanding of dynamics had opened a new chapter of chess understanding and theory, and Watson (who is a human indeed) felt it was time to write about it.
Nowadays there are opening lines one only can play with concrete analysis and general principles aren't worth much. I guess the Botwinnik in the Semislav is such an example.
Maybe he talks about new strategies that are different from classical ones, or maybe he favors finding concrete variations over practical principles, anyway I doubt the idea we can play good chess only with calculating variations because we are humans so we wouldn't find a good move that way.
It is true. Concrete analysis is always concrete whereas principles are just principles. Imagine exploring the space. Some say there is maybe life on a planet XYZ because the planet has app. the same distance from its "Sun" as our planet. Then they find out by a concrete analysis that there is no life on the planet XYZ. I hope it is easy to understand it now.

This is about how we perceive the words and their meaning and whether we are able to think outside the box or not.
Mr. Watson just wrote what is clear and no doubt it is true. Believe me you dont need any approval to think about this in this way.

Modern chess is about:
Learning the Opening Theory
Then playing your 10 moves in the middle game
and then trying to remember what was the trick to make a draw when you are a pawn down in a rook endgame.

I believe if I knew all my opening theory and remember and know how to apply all of the themes in the Dvoretsky's endgame book I am a GM. One need to have a great memory though.
I totally agree with him, because we are human. If we were machines, we would evaluate positions according space evaluation and domination -and its complex processes logical-mathematical-

Chess is a game of memory -also known among masters as "intuition"-: the assimilation of thousands of similar positions is what we call ingenuity or talent.

Another thing is what some GMs try to say to sell something -a book, a video-sequel...

Playing King's Pawn and defend with the Sicilian is just a question of style, every game is won with a checkmate or the surrender of someone.

So you Master Zaitsev are saying that concrete variations beats positional understanding?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.