wrote:
What's the general opinion that GMs have
of computer opening play without the
database on.

For FIDE chess, it has been said that GMs would come out of
the opening with some positional advantage or another. Mind
you, I have no idea how credible this apparent consensus is...


In that case, the computers must better middle and
end-game chess, because they consistently are
beating the GMs. One the world champion and the
very top players are drawing against the machines.

Actually, computers do use their openings database(s) when play-
ing against GMs in "celebrated" matches. Therefore, the consensus
that I alluded to may be more apparent (like an urban tale) than
real...



And, have computers verified or
shown erroneous the human research
that has occurs for the past several
hundred years or so, in terms of opening
moves, etc. Certainly computers will
be able to look quite a bit farther down the
game.

I am no expert in FIDE chess opening theory. My understanding
is that computer analysis of openings has contributed to the
re-evaluation of quite a few opening lines due to uncovered
"deep" tactical opportunities or flaws.

Do you have a link to more info?

Not offhand! You see, FIDE chess opening theory ranks rather low
in my priorities, being so much into Chess_18. 8) Keep in mind
though that, due to rather widespread "macho" attitudes and pre-
dispositions, not that many analysts and GMs are likely to ever
admit that their brilliancies, refutations and so on are the...
brainchildren of powerful computers.


If computers have created a re-evaluation
of opening moves, that's great, and shows
that the computer can certainly improve on
chess theory.

This is generally acknowledged. However, specifics are hard to
come by, or so it seems to this hobbyist...


But the advantages of the computer
analysis will diminish, unless the ability
to memorize more and more moves
is increased in humans.

This is a very good point. I wonder if GMs may already be
experiencing significantly diminishing returns with respect to
a relentlessly expanding opening theory. Nevertheless, GMs
may tacitly "agree" to play only a subset of opening lines as
an attempt to limit the risk of coming across something that
they are not routinely familiar with. In fact, risk minimization
may be an important factor behind opening fads in GM play. I
freely admit that this is only "wild" speculation on my part! 8)


Hence, my argument that
a sizable part of a great chess
champion is pure, brute force
memorization.

If you stick around this forum for a while, you will come across
quite a bit of coverage regarding this. As a Chess_18 enthusiast,
I cannot get too much excited about such memorization feats. But,
the fact remains, FIDE chess at the highest levels seems to call
for heavy duty memorization...