Thanks for the find, not something that you would know from other blogs.
Yes the paper often finds the obvious. However, isn't that what research is for, to confirm our observations.? Many of our antidotal experiences are just that, observations. Science is proving or disproving their significance.
I have a different take on comparing Carlson's games to others. First given his success, what is he doing different? For example, how does he get his pieces to the best squares? Is it his selection of openings or something else.
Thanks for the find, not something that you would know from other blogs.
Yes the paper often finds the obvious. However, isn't that what research is for, to confirm our observations.? Many of our antidotal experiences are just that, observations. Science is proving or disproving their significance.
I have a different take on comparing Carlson's games to others. First given his success, what is he doing different? For example, how does he get his pieces to the best squares? Is it his selection of openings or something else.
You still post some great material.