|Jan-25-13|| ||hms123: <mistermac> Welcome to forum land! I look forward to your comments.|
|Jan-27-13|| ||mistermac: Thank you very much, hms123! I see that you are regarded as being very helpful around here. I also suspect that you are somewhat of a scholar.|
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.
All that I hope is that an interesting conversation ensues, even if I simply watch on in rapt admiration!
|Jan-27-13|| ||hms123: <mistermac> thanks for the kind words. I will be glad to be part of your conversation and to point you to others who are quite knowledgeable on the topic.|
|Jan-28-13|| ||mistermac: My first trite observations.
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.
I am quite happy just to watch on while the experts have their say!
|Jan-28-13|| ||hms123: <mistermac>
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".
If Chess 360 becomes popular enough, we may find out the answer.
|Feb-14-13|| ||mistermac: I have found any interesting little endgame topic.
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.
Anyone ever studied such endings?
|Feb-14-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <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. >|
<RandomVisitor> has occasionally shared some of the Openings that Rybka comes up by analysis and not using the book. They are surprisingly pedestrian, IIRC stuff like 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 As for the idea of Opening strategy, I think the principles we live by are mostly based on experience. Philidor's Pawn chains slowly advancing were put to the test by later players and found wanting. The hyper-moderns challenged many traditional tenets, and over the board play proved they were espousing a legitimate alternate viewpoint. If they'd have been wrong, their ideas would have been discarded. So I understand the process to be challenge, test, evaulate. I have some more thoughts about what that means in human and computer chess but must save that for later.
|Feb-15-13|| ||mistermac: Thanks, Ohio.
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.
Thanks for your reply, as I was starting to despair of anyone doing so, apart from hms123, whose Baseball Analogy was very apropos to the subject in hand.
|Feb-15-13|| ||OhioChessFan: The responses in chess forums will come and go. I think many more people read them than bother to respond. I can't prove that, but I've always believed it. I do understand the sense of talking to the wind, but even that has its place. If you want to actively court discussion, mentioning your forum's topic of discussion on the Puzzle of the Day kibitzing might draw some takers.|
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.
I have some similar thoughts per human/engine chess, and engine chess in general but will get back to them.
|Feb-17-13|| ||mistermac: This is Kotov's first Diagram in "Think Like a Grandmaster" in Chapter I "Do you know how to analyse?"|
click for larger view
He does not give the solution, but I suspect it needs the computer to work out.
White to move.
|Feb-19-13|| ||mistermac: <mistermac>
<For White to play g4 and f4 early is not wise for very obvious reasons.>
A similar piece of advice applies to players of Black.
A recent game went, with me as White:
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.)
I have a somewhat wry sense of humour. But, I have always claimed that I play better than my rating! Some other critics would say that I vary in playing acumen. Which, alas is true. But I love the noble game, especially in old age. Keeps the brain muscle in some sort of trim.
|Feb-20-13|| ||OhioChessFan: Per Opening Novelties, someone posted this by Kasparov today on the Karpov page:|
<"This short game is a classic example of a battle decided entirely during home preparation," Karpov proudly writes in his book of best games. [here comes a lengthy quote of what Karpov says about the key novelty of that game – 14.h3! – compared to game 15 of the same match] This is a noteworthy fact: Karpov himself admits that he won this game thanks to home preparation. Just as in the 5th and, to a considerable degree, the 19th. I must once again remind you that genuine novelties were employed in this match only by my opponent, as if dispelling the myth about Kasparov the "opening expert." Strangely enough, in this, my best of the five matches with Karpov, I did not win a single game out of the opening! Moreover, I myself was literally bombarded with opening "bombs." But Karpov was let down by the fact that when playing Black his "bombs" missed their target: in the 4th, 8th, 14th and 16th games, and also in the tragic (for me) 18th game (as well as in the triumphal 22nd) I outplayed him in a complicated middlegame. And I won the match thanks to my enormous playing advantage at the board, rather than home preparation.> (from "Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part Three: Kasparov v Karpov 1986-1987")
|Feb-21-13|| ||perfidious: <mistermac> There is some discussion of the ending BB vs N here: Keene vs F J Sanz Alonso, 1975.|
|Feb-22-13|| ||mistermac: And a big thank you to <perfidious>!|
May all your checks be mates!
|Feb-23-13|| ||mistermac: mistermac: <OhioChessFan: The responses in chess forums will come and go. I think many more people read them than bother to respond. I can't prove that, but I've always believed it. I do understand the sense of talking to the wind, but even that has its place. If you want to actively court discussion, mentioning your forum's topic of discussion on the Puzzle of the Day kibitzing might draw some takers.>|
How true, Ohio! The wind does indeed listen, but gives its answers in another place! Instance BBvN.
I can live with that!
|Apr-06-13|| ||mistermac: Anyone who cares to visit my little forum may find it more suited to the patzers than the experts.
That said, all may find a recent 5 minute game of mine interesting. The final combination occured to me as sort of dejavu.
Does anybody recognise its pattern, or come up with the original, because I am sure mine is not completely original?
|Apr-06-13|| ||hms123: <mistermac>
You should visit some other forums. Introduce yourself and join the conversation. Game pages aren't the same.
Take the Premium Membership Tour