Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 05:36:52 08/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 1998 at 22:01:43, Tim Mirabile wrote: >I found the following quote in a book review by IM John Watson on the TWIC >pages. The full text is at http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson1.html in a >review of recent game collections by Speelman, Anand, and Shirov. > >> We should realize that Shirov, like Anand but more so, is a primary >> representative of the ultra-dynamic modern style. He calls his own style >> 'very concrete', which is consistent with his now-renowned powers of >> calculation; and makes this fascinating comment: >> >> 'I have always tried to be not just a tactician--working with a positional >> player such as Bagirov and studying hard has helped me to develop my own >> strategic understanding, although chess is nowadays so concrete that pure >> strategy practically doesn't exist for me.' >> >> An amazing statement which pretty much sums up what's been happening in chess, >> beginning with Kasparov. One could easily imagine Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, >> Ivanchuk, Polgar or any number of other top-class players saying the same >> thing. Pure strategy may not be dead; but it's been missing in action for 20 >> years or so, which is not auspicious!" > >The only problem is that this concrete style, which is so effective against >humans, plays right to the strength of current chess programs. Computer >opponents will continue to give the top humans fits until they realize this. > >But it is not so easy to simply abandon your style, and successfully adopt a new >one. The second Kasparov-Deep Blue match, especially game 2 before the errors, >demonstrated this. To adopt a new style at the same high level would require >intense study for a long period, and even then it might not be possible for such >a player to achieve the same results against humans as he had with the old >style. > >At this point it is not worth the effort for the top players, because there are >no computers in regular high-level tournaments. But I think it is still >possible for even average GMs to successfully adopt a positional style against >the microcomputer programs. This may involve adjusting ones opening choices, >and a willingness to pass up tempting tactical continuations in favor of lines >involving pure judgement. While I agree with the above conclusion, there is this to consider. What a GM considers strategy and what a computer program considers knowledge are 2 vastly different things. All GMs are looking at chess at such a level of strategical understanding compared to computers that they the GMs dismiss what we would consider strategy as just something beneath them even to talk about. I have heard very strong players talk about certain positions this way. "In this position and positions like it you don't even consider that. Everyone knows that this way is the right way to go. I don't want to hear about this. Look, you go here. I go here and now you are in ZUG. This is well known. You can't do this." If you were to ask the GM were there any strategical concepts in this position, he would look at you with rolled eyes and say No, this is too simple to discuss. So don't believe Shirov when he says that there is no strategy in his games. It is just that at his level strategy has a whole new meaning. He might mean that he hasn't come up with a new concept in quite a while and everything is opening study and calculation. He doesn't have to worry about positional play becuase he intuitively understands what Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik and Korchnoi know. He waves strategy away with a magic wand because it is part of him like his flesh and blood. BUT believe me, if you look at his match against Kramnik you will realize that Shirov understands and uses positional concepts far beyond what any computer program understands. Besides which his level of opening prep will always be far above any micro. So the Super GM has 2 large advantages over any chess computer, which will outweigh the calculation disadvantge for quite a while yet. The closer the micros get to beating the Super GM's, the farther it seems they have to go. Of course we are talking about 40/2 chess here where blunders don't play a major role. -- Komputer Korner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.