Author: blass uri
Date: 08:28:46 08/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 1998 at 08:36:52, Komputer Korner wrote: >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. I am not sure about the advantage of GM's in opening preperation I remember kasparov forgot his opening preperation and lost in a game, Something like this cannot happen to computer programs. Uri > 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.