Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

6th Sinquefield Cup Tournament

Levon Aronian5.5/9(+2 -0 =7)[games]
Magnus Carlsen5.5/9(+2 -0 =7)[games]
Fabiano Caruana5.5/9(+2 -0 =7)[games]
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov5/9(+1 -0 =8)[games]
Alexander Grischuk4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Viswanathan Anand4.5/9(+0 -0 =9)[games]
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave4.5/9(+0 -0 =9)[games]
Wesley So4/9(+0 -1 =8)[games]
Sergey Karjakin3/9(+0 -3 =6)[games]
Hikaru Nakamura3/9(+0 -3 =6)[games]
* Chess Event Description
6th Sinquefield Cup (2018)

The 6th Sinquefield Cup saw ten of the world's best players compete in the Saint Louis Chess Club from 18-27 August 2018. The event was the last leg of the 2018 Grand Chess Tour before the final in London, with Magnus Carlsen joining the tour regulars as a wild card. In addition to tour points (GP) the prize fund was $300,000, with $75,000 for 1st place.

Players received 100 minutes for 40 moves then 60 minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second delay from move 1. A tie for first place would be decided in a 2-game rapid mini-match (10 min + 5 sec delay), only between the top two, and if necessary an Armageddon game (5 vs. 4) on 28 August at 13:00 local time. (1) In the end, three players tied for first. The three decided to share the first place and not to have any playoff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 GP =1 Aronian * 1 1 5 15 =1 Carlsen * 1 1 5 15 =1 Caruana * 1 1 5 15 4 Mamedyarov * 1 5 10 =5 Grischuk 0 * 1 4 6 =5 Anand * 4 6 =5 Vachier-Lagrave * 4 6 8 So 0 * 4 3 =9 Karjakin 0 0 0 * 3 1 =9 Nakamura 0 0 0 * 3 1

Official site: report:

Previous edition: Sinquefield Cup (2017)

(1) Chess24: Sinquefield Cup

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Aronian vs Karjakin 1-06920186th Sinquefield CupC67 Ruy Lopez
2. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Carlsen ½-½3720186th Sinquefield CupB30 Sicilian
3. Caruana vs Grischuk ½-½6720186th Sinquefield CupC55 Two Knights Defense
4. Mamedyarov vs W So 1-05120186th Sinquefield CupD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
5. Nakamura vs Anand ½-½2920186th Sinquefield CupD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
6. Anand vs M Vachier-Lagrave ½-½3720186th Sinquefield CupB96 Sicilian, Najdorf
7. Carlsen vs Karjakin 1-08820186th Sinquefield CupA13 English
8. Grischuk vs Mamedyarov ½-½2420186th Sinquefield CupC18 French, Winawer
9. Caruana vs Aronian ½-½3820186th Sinquefield CupD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
10. W So vs Nakamura ½-½3120186th Sinquefield CupE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
11. Karjakin vs Anand ½-½3720186th Sinquefield CupC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
12. Nakamura vs Grischuk 0-18920186th Sinquefield CupC50 Giuoco Piano
13. M Vachier-Lagrave vs W So ½-½4520186th Sinquefield CupC67 Ruy Lopez
14. Mamedyarov vs Caruana ½-½6120186th Sinquefield CupD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
15. Aronian vs Carlsen  ½-½3820186th Sinquefield CupC50 Giuoco Piano
16. Anand vs Carlsen  ½-½5420186th Sinquefield CupB31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation
17. Mamedyarov vs Aronian ½-½2420186th Sinquefield CupD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
18. Caruana vs Nakamura 1-04920186th Sinquefield CupD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
19. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave ½-½2520186th Sinquefield CupB96 Sicilian, Najdorf
20. W So vs Karjakin  ½-½4820186th Sinquefield CupA28 English
21. Karjakin vs Grischuk ½-½4020186th Sinquefield CupC67 Ruy Lopez
22. Aronian vs Anand  ½-½3620186th Sinquefield CupD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
23. Nakamura vs Mamedyarov  ½-½5220186th Sinquefield CupD34 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
24. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana  ½-½4020186th Sinquefield CupC42 Petrov Defense
25. Carlsen vs W So ½-½5120186th Sinquefield CupA00 Uncommon Opening
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <AylerKupp:>

<Well, some of us strive for objective perfection while understanding that it is not currently realizable by either humans or computers. And I would characterize computer games as "less imperfect" than human games, nothing else. Computers make many mistakes, mostly due (I think) to the horizon effect but some due to overly aggressive search tree pruning.

And the clash between computer "minds" can be equally thrilling, at least for some of us. There have been many fascinating (at least to my mind) engine vs. engine games; I had started a collection but unfortunately I lost it as a result of a disk crash with insufficiently recent backups.>

I understand both you and <some of us> who <strive for objective perfection>, but I can't follow your passion for it, because I think the road aboard the computer vehicle leads into a neverending desert.

It's only a matter of time before the computer programme is able to lay out the final and complete map of the game and analyse any given position till the end with perfect moves. Just like it has been done with checkers a long time ago.

Fortunately for us humans, chess is immensely complicated, but it's "mystery" can be solved, it's variants are not infinite, so it is likely to happen, if enough people are interested in doing it and further progress in computers is made, and it will be made!

But this is actually a subjective, personal matter. I love human imperfection, I love the old BC games with all their errors and mistakes. I love when a player choses a mate that looks aesthetically pleasing but takes three more moves instead of the "perfect" mate three moves earlier. I love when a player like Tal or Larsen took a risk, knowing they didn't make the perfect moves, but moves that pleased their minds and made the game interesting and spiritually thrilling. I don't take pleasure in perfection as such. It's a good thing to strive for, but a dull thing to reach.

It seems to me that you have a matematical approach to the game, and if that pleases you, I am totally okay with it. To me it's still primarily a game between human minds, and I salute the imperfection and subjectivity that comes with it. I don't see it as a flaw or a mistake that should be rectified.

To me there is nothing worse (relatively spoken, of course) than using a strong computer programmes to dissect all the masterpieces of the BC past to show how flawed they were and how primitive they were in their understanding of chess. Ha-ha, they thought this game was a masterpiece, but look, my home computer quickly detected all the faults both players made.

Today, when chess has become a pure business among the professionals, there is little room for romantics like Tal and Larsen. No player today would choose the beautiful mate, they would make the quickest. Better for business.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: Great write-up, <Sally Simpson>. Interesting read.
Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: <It's only a matter of time before the computer programme is able to lay out the final and complete map of the game and analyse any given position till the end with perfect moves. Just like it has been done with checkers a long time ago.>


Depends on how deep chess really is. It simply could be the case that at some point programmers have reached their (current) limit of development regarded to chess, while the game is still unsolved. It would not be the first time this happened. There are more difficult things than chess to solve in this world, I suppose.

In other words: it's a race of intelligence. Because chess still tops human intelligence, there is little to predict for us. Therefore I suggest we should be as humble as possible.

I mean... look at what happened to Kasparov.. he's promoting 960 now... sounds familiar???

Look at what happened to Capa.. chess, so the story goes, came 'natural' to him, he also thought chess was about to be 'solved.' But you know what??? He died behind the board at young age. His heart could not deal with real chess any longer.

Chess is a cruel game, whether one likes it or not. It can be heaven, but usually it's hell for us humans.

Again, all variations could finally lead to a draw, except the one.. Don't say it isn't a mystery, because it simply is; we don't know.

Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver:

I think this list shows SF9 makes clear that it will find improvements in games analyzed by earlier versions. We won't know which games in advance, but that's not SF's problem.

Which simply means one has to run through ALL human games looking for improvements, each time a new SF update reaches another limit, which is 100 elo higher than its previous versions. Go figure!

Obviously humans are able to ignore all these given facts and proceed with the Berlin. However, this seems more a form of chess escapism to me, than it is an actual form of chess improvement. Just saying.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> The difference is a human analyzing a position is putting his knowledge and experience to use. We the reader can benefit and the analysis is usually within our grasp.>

The question that I posed was based on the following statement in your post (6th Sinquefield Cup (2018) (kibitz #512)

"You can however scrap all chess engines. Not because the top guys use them to prepare for games, it's because of the box jockeys who post their lengthy computers 'improvements' shamelessly trying to destroy a masterpiece."

So I take it from your response above that the issue is not that others, whether they use computers or not, post "improvements" shamelessly trying to destroy a masterpiece but because humans analyzing a position are putting their knowledge and experience to use and because their analysis is understandable to the rest of us.

If that is the case, then I wonder whether you would consider analyses by Alpha Zero, Leela C0, Deus X, or any other chess engine based on neural networks as acceptable as human analyses? After all, these NN-based chess engines acquire their chess knowledge by being trained and playing games against other engines, humans, or both. Think about that and let me know.

<All computers are bad analysts. They could never give a reason why a shot was missed or an error made. I've said this before to you. They do not even know they are playing a game.>

I agree, all computers are bad analysts. I believe that this is because chess engines were developed with the objective of playing ever better chess, not doing analysis, and their objective was to be able to defeat the best human players. Now that the issue of who is the better player, a human or a chass engine, has been conclusively settled, chess engines are rated and ranked according to how well they performed in games against other engines. After all, win/loss records are objective and conclusive, there is no good and easy to implement criteria for determining how good an engine analysis is.

As we've also discussed before, there is not reason why, if an engine was oriented towards analysis and not game playing, that they couldn't provide an explanation of why they arrived at their evaluation of a position. All the non-NN-based engines contain an evaluation function that evaluates a position based on the factors and relative importance (weights) assigned to these factors. Analysis-oriented chess engines could provide this information in human understandable form when queried, and I think that would be a valuable learning tool.

But there is no motivation for the engine developers to do something like this since their sales (if commercial engines) are based on how well they play games, not how well they analyze. And a commercial engine's evaluation function is considered proprietary and a trade secret, knowledge of which is something to be hidden from their competition.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> A good analyst can, and often does, offer an explanation as to why a shot was missed. This very act alone shows you he is treating the game as a human v human encounter, they are not out to destroy but embellish the game. Give their take on it and help the reader understand and possibly enjoy the game even more.>

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Some reasons such as time trouble and perhaps a player pressing because it's the last round of the tournament and they need a win with the Black pieces to tie or overtake the tournament leader would be reasonable explanations and this information is not typically available to chess engines. But how would an analyst know if, say, a player was under the weather, had a bad night's sleep, had a fight with his/her significant other, was suffering from the proverbial jet lag, or other things like that? Only the player can answer if those factors affected his/her play. If the analyst is trying to come up with such explanations then that's just pure conjecture on their part, nothing more. Some of us find this conjecture interesting, other don't.

With respect to the claim that Fischer's 22.e5 was not the best in the position from Fischer vs Spassky, 1972, based on a 82-ply analysis, that makes me gag. It's obvious that the poster doesn't seem to know how to use chess engines to reach a definitive evaluation of a position. First, he doesn't indicate what the evaluation of 22.e5 was compared to 22.Qh3; if their evaluation differed by one centipawn then I certainly wouldn't consider one move better than another. Second, he didn't seem to have done any forward sliding to try to see if there were any deviations by Black that would have improved his chances and to determine if the analysis suffered from the horizon effect or overly-aggressive search tree pruning. And, finally, he used only one engine instead of several engines. I personally think that use of multiple engines is essential in arriving at a definitive evaluation of a position since different engines have different evaluation functions and may come up with different evaluations. If they do, then who is to say that one engine's evaluation is better than the evaluation of another engine of comparable playing strength?

I fairness to the poster he did indicate that the Stockfish line that he posted was "an example best-play variation", implying that there are other possible "best play" lines.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> 22.e5 won. Spassky resigned on move 41. Why do we need to see another possible 'obvious win' taking 22 moves longer. If 22.e5 had been a blunder or 22 Qh3 a neat quick mate. The yes, otherwise what has the computer textless analysis with 22.Qh3 done?>

The poster did preface his post by saying that Kasparov believed that Spassky would not have been hopelessly lost if he had played 22...Nb6 instead of 22...Rb8, implying that while 22.e5 might have deserved a "!", it did not necessarily lead to a lost position for Black. Assuming, of course, that Kasparov's assessment was accurate. But 22.e5 was certainly not a blunder, and yet an assessment by Kasparov probably should be given some consideration. After all, he's a "human" and, as far as chess playing goes, certainly a "good human".

But you're right, the poster may not have needed to provide another possible 'obvious win' after 22 moves longer, although I'm not sure how he could have shown that 23.Qh3 also led to a win without a variation of that as I've indicated above. After all, in the actual game the position after 41.Qf4 which caused Spassky to resign was and "obvious loss" for Black. FWIW, this it what I got from Stockfish 9 at d=48 after 40 seconds of calculation:

1. [+M7]: 41...Qg8 42.Qe5 Qxg2+ 43.Kxg2 Rg7+ 44.Kf3 Rc8 45.e7 Kh7 46.Qf5+ Rg6 47.Qxg6+ Kh8 48.Qxh6#

2. [+M6]: 41...Kg8 42.Rxh6 Rxe6 43.Qxc7 Qf7 44.Qd8+ Qe8 45.Bxe6+ Kf8 46.Qf6+ Qf7 47.Qxf7#

3. [+M5]: 41...d3 42.Rf8+ Kh7 43.Bxd3+ Qg6 44.Bxg6+ Kxg6 45.Qg3+ Kh5 46.Rf5#

Since Spassky was certainly capable of seeing these variations OTB within a reasonable amount of time he was certainly justified in resigning. But if both 22.e5 and 22.Qh3 lead to a win for White in a similar number of moves, why quibble as to which one is a better move?

<And.....I'm with W.P.E. 100%. 960 is not Chess.>

Perhaps not. After all, what is and is not chess is a matter of personal opinion since, as Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani indicated, "Truth is not truth" .(

All I can say is that for the last 10 years FIDE has disagreed with both you and <WorstPlayerEver> by including the rules for Chess960 as part of their official Laws of Chess. Form your own opinion.

Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: The what????
Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: Sukkin Kalmukkian Dik.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> I understand both you and <some of us> who <strive for objective perfection>, but I can't follow your passion for it, because I think the road aboard the computer vehicle leads into a neverending desert.>

That's OK and understandable. The search for objective perfection is a neverending one. I can only hope that the sighting of it at the end of a neverending desert is not a mirage.

<But this is actually a subjective, personal matter. I love human imperfection, I love the old BC games with all their errors and mistakes.>

True, we are all different and enjoy different things. But I assume that you don't enjoy games played by low-rated players that are full of silly errors and obvious mistakes (I don't), so you must have an upper threshold of errors and mistakes that you are willing to tolerate and still enjoy the imperfect game. And I doubt that perfection in chess will be achieved any time soon, certainly not in our lifetime, so we still have the rest of our lives to enjoy these not too imperfect games.

<To me it's still primarily a game between human minds, and I salute the imperfection and subjectivity that comes with it. I don't see it as a flaw or a mistake that should be rectified.>

Neither do I. A game between two human players is fascinating because of all the reasons you mentioned. And a game between two strong engines is equally fascinating (at least to me) but for different reasons. Given that both engines are very, very, very strong players, how was one engine able to defeat the other? What did the losing engine do wrong and why are some of the questions that I find fascinating.

<To me there is nothing worse (relatively spoken, of course) than using a strong computer programmes to dissect all the masterpieces of the BC past to show how flawed they were and how primitive they were in their understanding of chess.>

I addressed that question to <Sally Simpson> above must maybe you can answer it. What do you see is the difference between a person using a computer to dissect all the chess masterpieces of the past and, as a human in the comfort of your home or study, with all the time that you choose to devote to the effort, and with the ability to move the pieces on the board, dissecting all the same chess masterpieces? An OTB chess masterpiece is created between 2 players (or computers, for that matter) with a clock ticking away while a post-game analyst, whether they use computers or not, are not operating under different circumstances. So why do you think that the person using a computer to dissect a masterpiece should be frowned upon and yet the person not using a computer, under circumstances very different than the circumstances under which the game was played, should not?

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<WorstPlayerEver> The what????>

That is a VERY open question. But I suspect that the answer is 42. Which, BTW, Wikipedia defines as "the natural number that succeeds 41 and precedes 43". I kid you not! (

Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: We are all the same. Some do take themselves seriously. Those I will burn in hell.


Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<WorstPlayerEver> Sukkin Kalmukkian Dik.>


Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: <AylerKupp>


Oh well, it's 3 o'clock here... on a scale of 24 hours. Time to stuff some painkillers down my throat.. this is unbearable!

Sep-19-18  WorstPlayerEver: PS btw how did you get my PIN code??? Lately I could not remember it myself.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: Hi <AylerKupp>, always a pleasure to discuss with you.

The point of my critics towards dissecting old BC games with computer programmes was not about doing it, but about the intention of doing it. If the intention is to analyse chess positions and gain new understanding I am all in for it.

In my modest chess library I have "John Nunn's Chess Course" which is mainly based on the games of Lasker. Nunn says in the introduction, "I have chosen the games solely for their instruction qualities." Obviously, Nunn finds faults and mistakes made by Lasker and his opponents but his intention is not to degrade games that were considered as masterpieces, but to use their positive learning qualities for better understanding of chess.

Sure, games between, say 1400 rating players will be packed with faults. But the beauty of chess is ALSO the relative experience of it. The two 1400 players who create what THEY think is a great game counts as much for them as a fine game between Carlsen and Caruana. IF perfection was paramount, only + 2750 players should be allowed to play chess and enjoy their games. I am sure you'll agree that the basic thrill and charm of chess is the fact that it can be played and enjoyed at all levels.

Transfer this to the upper 15 players today. They all realise that they could be beaten severely by any of the best programmes available, but fortunately they keep playing their games with the errors and mistake in the wake. However, if the programmes are used to conquer half of the games as it happens not too rarely now, then it becomes a battle between those who are best at memorizing what the machine created and that, my dear AK, is what I see as dystopy for chess.

Sep-20-18  WorstPlayerEver: Well, without kidding, obviously <AylerKupp> is right; the more a player depends on computer evaluations, the more they undermine their self-confidence.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Sally> I see you're still writing nonsense about computers.

Humans play chess games; other humans (annotators) write about those games in books, magazines, and online. If the human annotators don't use computers to check their work, they'll make mistakes (big and little). They'll do their job badly, and confuse and mislead their readers. It's that simple.

Memorize the preceding paragraph, and perhaps 90% of the nonsense you write on this topic will die on your keyboard.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

FIDE can endorse and make up rules for 960 if they want. It's a chess variant, some like it, some don't. I don't.


A human noting up a game can look at across table, see previous results between the two players, read reports of the game or even have talked to one or both of the players or read accounts of those who have.

Pachman, Vukovic, Spielmann and other experienced Masters all give a fair amount to time to the shock of a sacrifice or the unexpected move.

A human could know all of this, and more. but there is no way to let a computer know any of this so it can add this into it's calculations (and that includes 'Alpha Zero, Leela C0, Deus X, or any other chess engine based on neural networks')

It will display variations which it considers are the best moves for both sides without any other reasoning. If anything it is the one offering conjecture.

This also answers your question to Socrates and myself as to why I (I cannot answer in full for Socrates ) think analysis without any explanation or human input from a computer, especially in finding an alternative longer win, is a fruitless exercise. (though here as in the case of 960 some do enjoy posting this be it.)

It is made even more fruitless by the fact this site does not have a method of displaying a PGN in a post.

You are asking a C.G. browser to go to a lot of trouble and faffing about to actually see this analysis without a header.

Very few of the computer posters actually give a full header including a fen so you can, if you are interested, copy and paste it straight into a pgn browser. (even then you have to do some tweaking to get rid of the evo number.)

I'm sure I'm not far wrong in saying 90% of these computer dumps without a header or diagram go unplayed.

Till that happy day when C.G. does have a pgn playing thingy to incorporate into a post the best we have is posts like this, how it should be done.

Showalter vs Janowski, 1900 (kibitz #1)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi K.P.

"<Sally> I see you're still writing nonsense about computers."

I see you are still wading in with your size 10's without reading what we are discussing.

I embrace chess computers as a tool for the writer to check 'their' analysis.

as you yourself said:

". If the human annotators don't use computers to check their work, they'll make mistakes "

The key words your are using is 'their work.'

I box check my stuff if it gets too hairy (or an endgame :))

Occasionally when I have use one and I have to nudge it towards an interesting position it refused to display it can, and has, dropped a beautiful variation into my lap.

Then it's a wonderful piece of kit. I can slip that note in, it's beautiful (and I do give a computer credit.)

I was highlighting my dislike in seeing bland row after row of computer analysis without rime or reason. It's not 'their work.' A non chess player could do that.

I would like to see some sweat, some stab at a reason even if they are away on the wrong track. That can be discussed, corrected or even endorsed and the corrector corrected. (I've re-read that bit, it makes sense.) Everyone learns.

But I also added some here enjoy posting this stuff. So be it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi (the ghost of K.P.)

I see you have deleted your post.

Not me. I play touch move.


Sep-20-18  botvinnik64: Olympiad starts (1st round) Monday. USA! USA! USA! I'm looking for the line-ups for all the teams - chessresults?
Sep-20-18  botvinnik64: is the official website from Georgia. USA is 2777 rating; Russia is 2767. Of course, Azerbaijan and China and India have monster teams. Magnus is not playing, but Fabby is.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sokrates> And it's a pleasure for me to discuss things with you. And I suppose that it never occurred to me that there could be any other purpose in analyzing chess positions other than gaining new understanding but perhaps I'm just too naive. But, like any search for understanding, it requires work. Copying and pasting into a post long lines of computer analysis gains you nothing other than practice in copying and pasting, and very quickly you reach the point of diminishing returns. I personally try (sometimes I fail) to review all computer lines looking for reasonable alternatives and exploring those with the aid of an engine and try to understand why the computer selected those moves and why it rejected some of, what looked to me, reasonable alternative moves. And, of course, the horizon effect is always lurking in the background in either subtle or not so subtle ways, and you must check that this is not the case by forward sliding.

And don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoy games that might have mistakes in them. Take, for example, today's puzzle (Kotronias vs Xiu Deshun, 2011). An incredible performance in my opinion by Kotronias, even though many posters ran computer analyses and found that either some of Kotronias' sacrifices were not quite sound and that Black could have defended better. So what? I <expect> that there will be errors in all chess games, whether they are played by humans or computers. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment of these games in any way. After all, Tal is my all-time favorite player and even he admitted that many of his sacrifices were not quite sound.

But OTB (literally and figuratively in the case of computers) can't be perfect in the sense that one or both players play the objectively best move whenever they have the chance. OTB chess is about finding the best <practical> chances, not necessarily the objectively best move. If one has a choice between the objectively best move that will lead to a win many moves later or a somewhat speculative move that will have fairly good chances of not only ending the game much quicker and in style, which one would we pick? I'll bet that most of us would pick the speculative move.

And if it doesn't always work, so what? You can learn from it by finding out the reasons why it didn't succeed and improve your game as a result. Assuming that's one of your objectives.

As far as chess becoming a battle between those who are best at memorizing what has been analyzed before, that's hardly new. Many games in the BC era were determined by who was privy to the most recent and likely most lengthy analysis. In my opinion all that computers have done is raised the ante on the amount of memorization that is required at the highest level.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> FIDE can endorse and make up rules for 960 if they want. It's a chess variant, some like it, some don't. I don't.>

Well, if you take the long view the game of chess that we are most familiar with (which I'll call "modern chess") probably dates back to no earlier than 1475 or so ( when the rules were changed and the queen gained its standing as the most powerful piece. According to this article chess or a reasonably recognizable facsimile goes back at least 1,500 years and precursors of chess go back much further. So you could consider "modern chess" a variant of the chess that was popular immediately preceding it. And if some day a different form of chess (which I'll call "future chess") becomes prevalent, then we might consider "modern chess" as a variant of "future chess". But, regardless, it's what you like that's important. Certainly to you.

As far as there not being a way to let a computer know things like previous results between the two players, games between its opponent and others, and types of positions that its opponent does not play particularly well so that it can try to steer the game along those lines, of course there is. All it takes is disk storage, inputting the data, and ways to determine how to use the information to bias the evaluation of a position taking its opponents weaknesses into account.

No, this hasn't been done (yet). But don't confuse something that hasn't been yet done with something that can't be done. All it takes is finding a reason to justify the effort required against the benefit of having this capability.

As far as analysis without any explanation, whether it's done by humans or computers, being a fruitless exercise, I agree. I've seen many examples of lengthy (> 40 moves) analyses done by humans that supposedly "prove" that a particular move leads to a win, draw, or loss. Just look as some of the recent Team White vs. Team Black games where use of computers is prohibited. So such fruitless analyses not restricted to computers.

As far as this site not having at least a link to a PGN browser, that's unfortunate. But, given all the PGN browsers available that you can download, it should not be too difficult to copy and paste an analysis from a post into such a browser <PROVIDED> that the post adheres to the PGN standard. And that's probably the most difficult thing to enforce. I, for one, probably don't adhere to the PGN standard when I post analyses, whether they're my own or computer generated, and maybe I should. And I certainly don't include a PGN header but, again, maybe I should.

But I don't see what having or not having a PGN header has to do with viewing the moves. There is no information in a PGN header that is required in order to display the moves. Most of the information in the PGN header is irrelevant since you are not looking at a <game>, you're looking at an analysis which can, at best, be considered a fragment of a game. For example, I've created a viewer written in Visual Basic for Applications (VBE) which is attached to an Excel spreadsheet that allows you to select any set of moves, whether they are part of a game or not, and display all the moves on a chessboard. So I think that any PGN viewer could, if desired, display the required header tag descriptors and something like "???" for all the missing field. <> does that a lot when it comes to displaying the players' rating which, BTW, is not one of the required fields to be included in the PGN header.

With regards to <KEG>'s analysis in Showalter vs Janowski, 1900 (kibitz #1), yes, that's certainly an improvement over what is usually done but perhaps you should note that it does not conform to the PGN standard (no header, notes not enclosed in ..., etc.). Not that it matters much, I don't think. Hopefully you consider this computer-generated posted analysis of mine (and the post that follows it) as passing the 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean test: M Stean vs Browne, 1974 (kibitz #56). But it doesn't conform to the PGN standard either.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 22)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC