"RPM1" wrote in message
...

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote ...
This whole thing about computers....I cannot understand why anyone would
want to "mimic" a computer. Nor do I want to envision a world where a
stupid
computer is placed higher than human ingenuity, egad! About 10-12 years
ago
I was quite active in club play, as well as playing in tournaments. Then
I
sort of lost interest, today I have regained that interest. Sadly, it
seems
to me that chess today is not what it was then. I fail to see what is so
dammed wonderful in playing a computer and then transfering that
knowledge
to a otb situation. I feel that in doing something like that, one is
merely
parroting what the computer so to speak "taught", not what the player
had
to
pick up on his own.

I find playing against a computer has helped me improve my game for
the simple reason that it is the only way I can play slow chess. If I try
to play a game of chess at 40 moves in 2 hours against a person, (online
or offline), I invariably get interrupted by something, (I have a six year
old son). I find that having a handheld computer opponent that I can
turn off and then pick right up where I left off allows me play slow
chess games in pieces. My otb ratings, (online), have increased
dramatically since I started focusing on slow chess with the handheld.
Even though I'm still playing fast chess online, (nothing slower than game
in
20 minutes), the practice at 40 in 120 minutes has really helped.
So in my case the convenience of the computer has helped with no
parroting involved.

Patrick


i understand your situation and have almost capitulated to that "line" (a
little chess humour), and I dont fault you for that, but it is not for me.
I do use a computer at school to make moves when reviewing games since a
real live 3D set wont fit on my desk. Time to start teaching the six yr to
play, isnt it???

Alberich wrote:
I'd be interested in a [Fischer random] match between say...Kramnik
vs. Judit Polgar. Kramnik has a overwhelming score over Judit Polgar.
But does that mean he's THAT much a better player than Judit Polgar?!
Hardly. Judit Polgar could easily beat anyone she wants to...it's
because the opponent has become so nuanced in the variations they're
playing that Judit Polgar doesn't have a chance.

That's a pretty offensive remark. You're arguing that Polgar's play
has no nuance, that she's negligent in her preparation and that she
patronizes her opponents by not beating them even though she can. This
is clearly nonsense.


Remember, Kramniks comments are implying very strongly that a deep
knowledge of a few core variations can go along way in ensuring draws
whichever way the opponent chooses to play. Memorization becomes
critical at this stage of the game.

Memorization is critical to chess. Tests have shown that, when GMs play
chess, a large part of their thinking is recalling positions and ideas
they've seen before. Even if you make them play FRC, they'll move towards
positions that are familiar to them and will use their memories.


You would have to wait literally up to move 35 or 40 in some lines
before original chess is actually played!

That just isn't true. Back up your statement with some variations.


They'd be swimming with no life boat safely in tow

Um, interesting metaphor.


In my book Leko is the world champion because he was willing to play
Fischer Random and beat Michael Adams.

???


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it's also a
crime against nature!

"ses" wrote ...

"RPM1" wrote ...

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote ...

I find playing against a computer has helped me improve my game for
the simple reason that it is the only way I can play slow chess. If I
try
to play a game of chess at 40 moves in 2 hours against a person, (online
or offline), I invariably get interrupted by something, (I have a six
year
old son). I find that having a handheld computer opponent that I can
turn off and then pick right up where I left off allows me play slow
chess games in pieces. My otb ratings, (online), have increased
dramatically since I started focusing on slow chess with the handheld.
Even though I'm still playing fast chess online, (nothing slower than
game
in
20 minutes), the practice at 40 in 120 minutes has really helped.
So in my case the convenience of the computer has helped with no
parroting involved.

Patrick


i understand your situation and have almost capitulated to that "line"
(a
little chess humour), and I dont fault you for that, but it is not for me.
I do use a computer at school to make moves when reviewing games since a
real live 3D set wont fit on my desk. Time to start teaching the six yr
to
play, isnt it???

Off Subject:

Oh he plays, but playing against him doesn't improve *my* game
very much. He's good for a 6 year old but he's no chess prodigy.

One thing I've noticed since starting the chess club at the local
elementary school is that kids that age just don't see diagonal
moves very well at all. Their queen could be sitting there with
a pawn attacking it and neither player sees it, (even the 5th
graders)! They see knight moves better than diagonal moves.
It's interesting.

Patrick

Alberich wrote:

real chance I'd beat them in this kind of chess. In my book Leko is the
world champion because he was willing to play Fischer Random and beat
Michael Adams. Now, did this mean Michael Adams wasn't a good chess
player than Leko? No...but his "style" of play suffered when trying this
new way of playing original setups.

I thought grandmasters agreed Adams was the better player of unusual
positions (before the match!) - so your prediction alone about Kramnik and
Polgar is not fantastically strong.

Adams-Leko wasn't the longest match ever, anyway 4-5 games was it?

Henry

I too am highly disappointed that the defender Kramnik got more points than
the fighters Kasparov, Topalov and Radjabov. I don't enjoy Kramnik games
(with exceptions of course) as much as I enjoy the fighter games of
Kasparov, Topalov and Radjabov (also with exception of course).

As much as I respect Kramnik, I wish we had world champions not like him or
Petrosian, but like Kasparov, Alekhine, Tal, and Fisher. The latter world
champions played the battle game that chess is supposed to be. Kramnik on
the other hand, like Petrosian, often emasculates chess to a non-battle
game.

"Gregory Topov" wrote in message
. ..
In checking some of the Linares games this week I did notice that lots of
kibitzers called Kramnik boring. Here's a link to an interesting
interview
with Kramnik:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1322

An important quote from it:
"The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was
the first to display this clearly, particularly in my games against
Kasparov. You can't play the same way today as people did ten years ago. I
admire Kasparov's imaginative attacking victories from the '80s and '90s,
but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine
accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge
of
a bluff just doesn't work anymore. We are under the influence of computers
and we are defending much more precisely. Kasparov himself has adapted his
style. He even admits that he now plays like I do."

I don't even have half the rating of a GM, so my comments probably don't
mean much grin, but I do question whether Kramnik is entirely correct
here. Could he be jealous, thinking that Kasparov has an attacking
imagination that he lacks? My thoughts:

1. Kasparov's attacking style is effective.
Kramnik may say that Kasparov admits he plays like Kramnik, but at Linares
it seems widely agreed that although Kramnik won, it was Kasparov who
played
the best and most attacking chess (and not in Kramnik style either!). In
at
least three games Kaspy failed to convert a won position, partly coz of
time
pressure. I followed a few snippets from his last two games, and Kasparov
certainly was playing attacking chess, and absolutely not the cautious
defensive (boring?) style that Kramnik speaks about! In his second last
game (vs Topalov), Kasparov launched a beautiful attack with some
brilliant
sacrifices, but then had to make something like 10 moves in 10 minutes to
time control, and twice missed a winning move, and so ended up with a
draw.
In his last game against Vallejo he also played some brilliant attacks,
but
it wasn't enough to win. This happened more than once in the tournament
(in
at least two other games he should have won with his attack, but missed a
winning move and had to settle for a draw). Think of Kasparov's famous
1999
Wijk Aan Zee game against Topalov, with a double rook sacrifice. That
double rook sacrifice would not have been played by a computer, nor would
it
have been accepted by a computer. Yet it was sound. So I doubt that it's
true that Kasparov now plays like Kramnik, nor is it true that this
playing
style is ineffective!

2. Kasparov's attacking style is beautiful.
Even if one concedes to Kramnik that cold and calculated defense is more
sound, this doesn't mean that chess has improved. Take the 1999
Kasparov-Topalov game for instance - with a cold defensive Kramnik
computer-like style, that double rook sacrifice wouldn't have been played
nor would it have been accepted, and the world would have been deprived of
something beautiful. Cold defensive play may win, but it lacks beauty and
imagination. So while Kramnik's defensive style may give him an overall
win
(it did in this tournament anyway), but I'd choose the "imaginative
attacking victories" of Kasparov any day! They may not always be entirely
100% sound (debatable perhaps), but isn't this what the art and beauty of
chess is all about? As soon as chess degenerates entirely to such cold
calculation, and humans play more like computers, then chess will lose
much
of its beauty, art, passion and fire.

That is already happening it seems. "79% of the games were drawn in
Linares
this year, many of them in under 25 moves, including seven by the
tournament
winner Kramnik." Kramnik may not lose much with his cold computer-like
defensive style, but he sure isn't very popular. If all chess players
adopt
this defensive style, it won't be long before chess itself won't be
popular.
In fact, the chess-players hostile reaction to Kramnik and to the
multitude
of draws at Linares suggests that maybe this is already the case? One of
the few who gave the tournament life and excitement was Kasparov - it was
unfortunate that he seemed a bit rusty and unable to make his brilliance
endure to the end to get the wins he deserved.

In one respect Kramnik may be right. As computers continue to improve,
they
will eventually supercede humans, because of their ability to calculate
futher. If computers improve their speeds at the same rate, someone
calculated that by the year 2168, computers will be able to *solve* chess.
I can see a time coming where computers will be able to play better than
humans through sheer brute calculation. But who is going to pay to see a
match between Super-Deep Fritz 99 vs Super-Deep Junior 99 in the year
2100?
Nobody, because it will be a boring defensive dead draw. We'd rather
watch
two humans go at it with imagination, art and beauty, and the occasional
slight mistake. Kramnik's style may lead to better chess results (ie a
record with less losses) because of deeper and calculated cold defense and
an improved win/loss record, but the beauty of chess will not improve.
Instead of art, chess will turn into pure math. And isn't that the very
attraction of human chess - the beauty, the art and the imagination?
Chess
will lose something when it becomes pure mathematical calculation.
Similarly chess will lose something if it is embodied in Kramnik instead
of
Kasparov. There's good reason why attacking players like Morphy,
Capablanca, Tal, Fischer and Kasparov are much loved.

This leads me to a related question: Has the percentage of drawn games
increased over the years? 80% is rather inordinate it seems! (this was
the
percentage of draws at Linares) Some draws are fair enough - like
Kasparov
vs Vallejo in their last game - an exciting attacking game that lasted 5
hours, but after the dust settled from the furious play, it was a draw.
Others like Kramnik's last game (lasting only 20 or 25 moves) are a
travesty
to chess. Imagine agreeing to draw a soccer game at half time just
because
the scores are tied! Ridiculous! Play it out, and if it's a draw at the
end, fine! But who knows, maybe one player will blunder, or be able to
press home a tiny advantage. That's what chess is all about. Don't quit
when the middle game is only beginning.

One player who seems to have a different out look is young Radjabov. He
had
the most decisive results at Linares: won two games and lost two. Why?
He
seems willing to play out games, and not just agree to a premature draw.
Too many super GM games are merely being "half-played". Proof: Each of
Radjabov's decisive games could also have been declared an agreed draw
after
20 moves, because it was generally only later in the game that the winner
emerged. Similarly I'm sure if many of the quick draws had been played
out,
there may have been a winner (even as the result of small errors from
their
opponent, or through their own brilliance - but that's chess!) I find
this
incredibly frustrating! They don't stop a boxing match after the first
round unless there's a clear winner, and the same principle applies to
chess: if there's no clear winner after round 1, play round 2, then round
3.
Chess involves an opening, a middle game, and an end game, and only if the
players are equal in each of these three "rounds" should the final result
be
a draw. To agree to a draw before the middle game has been played out is
premature, just like calling a boxing match a draw after the first or
second
round is premature. Has the amount of draws increased over time? Surely
the 80% of draws isn't because players are more equal nowadays, but
because
they're just taking an easy draw when the game is not a whole lot beyond
the
opening!

Of course, I'm just a patzer, but if chess champs lose their appeal for
patzers, then what future does chess itself have? Even patzers can see
that
chess is changing - the Linares "draw" record speaks volumes - but is this
really a change for the better?

--
Gregory Topov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan

"ses" wrote in message
...

i dont even rate a patzer standing, but.....



No need for the "but" or anything after it. You have summed up your
*expertise* or lack of it already. Keep silent, watch, and learn (or if you
are incapable of learning, at least try not to litter the newsgroup with
your drivel.

Jason Repa

"Gregory Topov" wrote in message ...
In checking some of the Linares games this week I did notice that lots of
kibitzers called Kramnik boring. Here's a link to an interesting interview
with Kramnik:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1322

An important quote from it:
"The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was
the first to display this clearly, particularly in my games against
Kasparov. You can't play the same way today as people did ten years ago. I
admire Kasparov's imaginative attacking victories from the '80s and '90s,
but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine
accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge of
a bluff just doesn't work anymore. We are under the influence of computers
and we are defending much more precisely. Kasparov himself has adapted his
style. He even admits that he now plays like I do."

While its true that the strong computers (with sophisticated computer
programs) of today have taken out a lot from the artistic beauty of
chess due to their brute calculations (showing us that many sacrifices
of the past which led to victory could have been saved by the opponent
who lost).

Computers have affected the way many people are playing chess.

However, I feel that Kasparov still plays attacking chess. Maybe his
losses to the computers in those hugely publisized matches may have
curtailed him a bit but Kasparov probably has one of the best (if not
the best) preparation for the openings that one has ever seen. He can
take out the minutest of flaws in any opening and exploit it to his
benefit. Of course if one doesn't make a mistake (according to
Kasparov) than Kasparov will probably offer a draw to the opponent
after seeing the position after a certain number of moves.

If no one makes a mistake the matches are a dead draw. It is the
mistakes (minor or major) that allow the opponents to exploit them and
go for victory.

Strong computers with sophisiticated programs do not make mistakes. At
the highest level when playing with someone like Kasparov maybe he
(Kasparov) could exploit the minutest of positional situations and
even win against todays strong computers. However, the day is not far
when computers will be able to calculate even faster and better. Add
to that more sophisticated computer programs and yes humans will have
no chance. Even super GM's will be beaten on their home pc's.

This may improve the over all quality of chess if it improves the
precision of the chess players. However, one hopes that there will
still be those great chessplayers who will play to defend when
confronted with an opponent who counters their moves perfectly.
However, if and when they spot a minor mistake in their opponent they
should start with their attack. This is not as easy as it sounds and
requires a great expertise in chess especially when one is playing at
the highest level. A premature attack could lead to defeat so the
player must have a very sound understanding of when to exploit the
position. And the position may not really look exploitable to most
GM's but that great player could still see far ahead and know how he
(or she) can exploit it.

One hopes that such great players will remain. Therefore, matches
between computers (and even between humans and computers) may become
boring. Since computer vs computer will probably result in a draw if
both computers are evenly matched and the best a human could do (in
the future) would be to draw against a computer. However, human vs
human should still be interesting. (Provided attacking players still
exist).

Regards,

Chessplayer


I don't even have half the rating of a GM, so my comments probably don't
mean much grin, but I do question whether Kramnik is entirely correct
here. Could he be jealous, thinking that Kasparov has an attacking
imagination that he lacks? My thoughts:

1. Kasparov's attacking style is effective.
Kramnik may say that Kasparov admits he plays like Kramnik, but at Linares
it seems widely agreed that although Kramnik won, it was Kasparov who played
the best and most attacking chess (and not in Kramnik style either!). In at
least three games Kaspy failed to convert a won position, partly coz of time
pressure. I followed a few snippets from his last two games, and Kasparov
certainly was playing attacking chess, and absolutely not the cautious
defensive (boring?) style that Kramnik speaks about! In his second last
game (vs Topalov), Kasparov launched a beautiful attack with some brilliant
sacrifices, but then had to make something like 10 moves in 10 minutes to
time control, and twice missed a winning move, and so ended up with a draw.
In his last game against Vallejo he also played some brilliant attacks, but
it wasn't enough to win. This happened more than once in the tournament (in
at least two other games he should have won with his attack, but missed a
winning move and had to settle for a draw). Think of Kasparov's famous 1999
Wijk Aan Zee game against Topalov, with a double rook sacrifice. That
double rook sacrifice would not have been played by a computer, nor would it
have been accepted by a computer. Yet it was sound. So I doubt that it's
true that Kasparov now plays like Kramnik, nor is it true that this playing
style is ineffective!

2. Kasparov's attacking style is beautiful.
Even if one concedes to Kramnik that cold and calculated defense is more
sound, this doesn't mean that chess has improved. Take the 1999
Kasparov-Topalov game for instance - with a cold defensive Kramnik
computer-like style, that double rook sacrifice wouldn't have been played
nor would it have been accepted, and the world would have been deprived of
something beautiful. Cold defensive play may win, but it lacks beauty and
imagination. So while Kramnik's defensive style may give him an overall win
(it did in this tournament anyway), but I'd choose the "imaginative
attacking victories" of Kasparov any day! They may not always be entirely
100% sound (debatable perhaps), but isn't this what the art and beauty of
chess is all about? As soon as chess degenerates entirely to such cold
calculation, and humans play more like computers, then chess will lose much
of its beauty, art, passion and fire.

That is already happening it seems. "79% of the games were drawn in Linares
this year, many of them in under 25 moves, including seven by the tournament
winner Kramnik." Kramnik may not lose much with his cold computer-like
defensive style, but he sure isn't very popular. If all chess players adopt
this defensive style, it won't be long before chess itself won't be popular.
In fact, the chess-players hostile reaction to Kramnik and to the multitude
of draws at Linares suggests that maybe this is already the case? One of
the few who gave the tournament life and excitement was Kasparov - it was
unfortunate that he seemed a bit rusty and unable to make his brilliance
endure to the end to get the wins he deserved.

In one respect Kramnik may be right. As computers continue to improve, they
will eventually supercede humans, because of their ability to calculate
futher. If computers improve their speeds at the same rate, someone
calculated that by the year 2168, computers will be able to *solve* chess.
I can see a time coming where computers will be able to play better than
humans through sheer brute calculation. But who is going to pay to see a
match between Super-Deep Fritz 99 vs Super-Deep Junior 99 in the year 2100?
Nobody, because it will be a boring defensive dead draw. We'd rather watch
two humans go at it with imagination, art and beauty, and the occasional
slight mistake. Kramnik's style may lead to better chess results (ie a
record with less losses) because of deeper and calculated cold defense and
an improved win/loss record, but the beauty of chess will not improve.
Instead of art, chess will turn into pure math. And isn't that the very
attraction of human chess - the beauty, the art and the imagination? Chess
will lose something when it becomes pure mathematical calculation.
Similarly chess will lose something if it is embodied in Kramnik instead of
Kasparov. There's good reason why attacking players like Morphy,
Capablanca, Tal, Fischer and Kasparov are much loved.

This leads me to a related question: Has the percentage of drawn games
increased over the years? 80% is rather inordinate it seems! (this was the
percentage of draws at Linares) Some draws are fair enough - like Kasparov
vs Vallejo in their last game - an exciting attacking game that lasted 5
hours, but after the dust settled from the furious play, it was a draw.
Others like Kramnik's last game (lasting only 20 or 25 moves) are a travesty
to chess. Imagine agreeing to draw a soccer game at half time just because
the scores are tied! Ridiculous! Play it out, and if it's a draw at the
end, fine! But who knows, maybe one player will blunder, or be able to
press home a tiny advantage. That's what chess is all about. Don't quit
when the middle game is only beginning.

One player who seems to have a different out look is young Radjabov. He had
the most decisive results at Linares: won two games and lost two. Why? He
seems willing to play out games, and not just agree to a premature draw.
Too many super GM games are merely being "half-played". Proof: Each of
Radjabov's decisive games could also have been declared an agreed draw after
20 moves, because it was generally only later in the game that the winner
emerged. Similarly I'm sure if many of the quick draws had been played out,
there may have been a winner (even as the result of small errors from their
opponent, or through their own brilliance - but that's chess!) I find this
incredibly frustrating! They don't stop a boxing match after the first
round unless there's a clear winner, and the same principle applies to
chess: if there's no clear winner after round 1, play round 2, then round 3.
Chess involves an opening, a middle game, and an end game, and only if the
players are equal in each of these three "rounds" should the final result be
a draw. To agree to a draw before the middle game has been played out is
premature, just like calling a boxing match a draw after the first or second
round is premature. Has the amount of draws increased over time? Surely
the 80% of draws isn't because players are more equal nowadays, but because
they're just taking an easy draw when the game is not a whole lot beyond the
opening!

Of course, I'm just a patzer, but if chess champs lose their appeal for
patzers, then what future does chess itself have? Even patzers can see that
chess is changing - the Linares "draw" record speaks volumes - but is this
really a change for the better?