I have spent a little time searching for thoughts on the issue of computer Chess, a subject on which I know very little. It was interesting for me to examine, since you posted, the deliberations of various World Teams and Teams Black and White, and try to grasp how the best Chess minds on this site went about their work. The sad news for mefrom all that is that my hope of throwing light on the subject has been dashed. Mediocrity's main duty in life is to pay homage to genius, and respect to expertise. I'm very 'umble, to quote Mr U. Heep.

This being said, I will proceed with a few trite observations, and if anyone thinks them worthy of comment, even a disparaging one, please state so, but a conversation needs to start somewhere.

Should anyone care to simply ignore them, and start where he believes the matter is really at, then let him do so.

The initial Standard Position (SP) in a game of Chess is, I suspect, no accident. I find it hard to believe that, from a human point of view, it is other than the best configuration to ensure that an interesting struggle ensues.

The only trouble with the SP is that after a few hundred years of intense scrutiny, it becomes a little bit boring. Bobby Fischer thought so, and lamented the fact that it limited the Game, and stifled Chess in a very real way.

Thus, we have seen the idea of changing the initial configuration with the hope of posing new challenges, and making Chess more pure in some sense.

The first problem in any configuration is to bring mainly the Bishops and Queen into play. This involves moving the necessary pawns. The transcedental Knights need no such freeing up. They hop off more or less to their heart's content.

So, some pawns are compelled to move. Seeing they are not allowed to retreat, it is important to place them is a good a spot as possible with all the consideration that that entails.

The SP is suited to allowing a player to decide to seek an Open Position early in the game should he so desire. Gambit possibilities abound, and the possibility of pins by Bishops are available early.

The SP also has certain squares near the King which need to be thought about seriously. f7 is probably the most notorious in this regard.

For White to play g4 and f4 early is not wise for very obvious reasons.

In general, from my limited study of the subject, the Computer has not seemed to be very successful in finding ways of improving the Praxis of two centuries in the Openings. It is at its best when it is "out of the Book", and can use its superb ability to calculate Tactics at depth.

Enough for now from me.

As I said in my previous post, please pardon my baby observations. Vent your wrath on them if you must. Ignore them if you feel so inclined and make new comments of your own.

The analogy that occurred to me was baseball. The size of the field seems just right for the game. There are close plays at all the bases. If the base paths were longer, the runners would be thrown out every time. If the base paths were shorter, the runner would be safe every time.

My conclusion is that the size of the field converged on its current dimensions and then was codified.

I don't know the history of chess well enough, but I don't think that same sort of convergence happened in chess. There was some: double moves by pawns, en passant rule, castling, etc. Possibly it did happen.

Nonetheless, I think the openings developed (as you say ) through praxis. Had the pieces been on other squares, other openings would have developed instead.

We might have rules of thumb like "knights on the rim are fabulous" and "develop the edges of the board before the center" and "develop bishops before knights" and "never castle unless you have to".

Basically, one sets up a random position where White has King and two Bishops of opposite colours versus Black with King and Knight. Now, you would think that such should generally be a drawn position.

In practice however, it seems that most times White wins, at least on my freebie Chess Program, (which is I would reckon well over 2000 in rating).

I cannot see a method for a forced win, but as long as White watches out for pesky Knight forks, he seems to able to be able eventually to force the Knight away from the protection of the King or vice versa, or pin one against the other decisively.

I am glad thet Rybka agrees with Weaver Adams on the subject, and incidentally Tartakower who likes 2. Nc3 because it "threatens nothing".

To threaten nothing seems to be a feature of Computer Chess strategy, until you find that you yourself have no viable threat, or are in Zugswang, enmeshed in a spiderweb.

So, I look forward to what you have saved for Ron, as in Late Ron of happy memory.

Excuse my lame joke. But one day I hope also to be able to acquire a lame jacket.

As for Opening Theory, the last dreary World Championship reminded me of my musings about Opening Novelties. That is, if there were a short match between 2 evenly paired players, and the support team of one player found a winning opening novelty, and thus that player won the match, does that make him a better chess player? My instinct is to say no, but in fact, aren't many games won in that fashion? Isn't that part of the game of chess? The internet age has changed things a lot, but there are still occasions more than one person is waiting with a prepared move for an opponent, and the lucky guy who draws that opponent first in a tournament gets an extra point on the opposition by sheer luck.

click for larger view

He does not give the solution, but I suspect it needs the computer to work out.

A similar piece of advice applies to players of Black.

A recent game went, with me as White:

1.e4 g5
2.d3 f6 (to protect the g pawn)
3.Qh5+ (on the principle that it is always wise to give Check as it may be Mate, which Shangri-la it turned out to be.)

How true, Ohio! The wind does indeed listen, but gives its answers in another place! Instance BBvN.