Hearts of Iron
I own a computer game I've played a few times called Hearts of Iron. Basically, it's a World War II game where you are the leader of a country during a certain specified time period of that war. Part of the game involves spending resources to develop technology. Often, those resources are limited and you are able to fully fund some of the projects and only partially fund others. The effect is that your primary focus projects complete relatively on-time while your secondary projects only develop a little until such time as the primary ones are completed. At that point, the primary focus technology is implemented and the secondary projects become your primary projects.
I'm wondering if I could apply this concept to circles. I have the Strategy 2.0 software from Convekta, and I'm currently working through the Chess Endgame Training program. I could add on to my current schedule a ramped down circle program with Strategy 2.0. Given that I will be already 1 week into my endgame program, when I finish the 7th circle of Chess Endgame Training, I will be 1 week away from completing my 1st circle of Strategy 2.0. I don't know whether I want to commit to such a task, but it would expedite my training and is certainly food for thought.
I'm wondering if I could apply this concept to circles. I have the Strategy 2.0 software from Convekta, and I'm currently working through the Chess Endgame Training program. I could add on to my current schedule a ramped down circle program with Strategy 2.0. Given that I will be already 1 week into my endgame program, when I finish the 7th circle of Chess Endgame Training, I will be 1 week away from completing my 1st circle of Strategy 2.0. I don't know whether I want to commit to such a task, but it would expedite my training and is certainly food for thought.
posted by CelticDeath at 12:45 PM
5 Comments:
I had the same problem, to choose between CET and strategy 2.0.
I'm glad I cut the knot. Because for me it is impossible to divide my energy. Since I have a broad area of interest, I always have difficulty to focus on one thing anyway. Not to mention on two. That's the reason why I focus just on pawn endings. Such focus has always proven to be the fastest way for me to get things done.
This also holds for a game. I think a good strategy of winning a game is to have a main plan and a backup plan. Play the main plan and force the opponent to parry it. Then win with your backup plan. I think this is what GMs do. They know in advance what targets will emerge when plan one is to be parried, and they prepare an attack to them.
This is true, Mousetrapper. Another thing I think they do is to not necessarily go in for the kill once a weakness is created. Instead, they may just go about creating additional weaknesses in their opp's position before striking.
Yes, CD. There are 2 kinds of weaknesses: transitional and steady. If a weakness is transitional, you have to attack immediately or leave it. If it is steady, you see most GMs wait and build up more pressure. So what I learned from GM games is: Never take a pinned piece as long as the pin holds.
I used to be a Hearts of Iron addict. I loved how it implemented both immediate military tactics along with long term strategical planning. You decide what you're focus will be then you get to it with technology, alliances, etc. After hours of planning you implement you're war machine. It can be a bust or a boom. but it's always fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home