< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jun-27-19|| ||Cedroke: The Man In The Mirror - to quote Giri|
|Jun-27-19|| ||Dionysius1: The winning effect of the long range power of the black ♕ and the finishing in 20 something moves reminded me of Robert E Byrne vs Fischer, 1963|
|Jun-27-19|| ||john barleycorn: When I saw this game, I was strongly reminded of |
Reti vs Capablanca, 1928
|Jun-27-19|| ||JustAnotherMaster: Mavnus "the mirror" Carlsen...can you see the painnnnnnnnn|
|Jun-27-19|| ||john barleycorn: Giri and Nakamura are the best talkers and showmen among the elite chess players, imo. Entertaining to a certain degree but unsuccessful to back up their talk.|
|Jun-28-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Hi Northrn Fox,
"...involved exactly 3 of the key elements identified by Sandler and Regan as key to the successful attacking technique of AlphaZero against a castled King--namely, the combination of:
1. controlled diagonal
2. controlled file
3. push of h pawn."
As fully explained with examples dating back to Greco by Vukovic in 'The Art of Attack in Chess.' (1965), he too took a lot of his material from earlier writers on the subject, Tarrasch, Spielmann and Alekhine...
Chapter 7 "Ranks, Files and Diagonals in the attack on the Castled King."
Alpha Zero, and it's fans, (a machine with fans...good grief) some think this tin can has revolutionised chess. It is simply re-inventing the wheel - it's added a few new spokes, I'll give it that, but we cannot allow it to remove the saddle and handle bars. We are still in the seat and steer chess. It's a human v human game.
|Jun-28-19|| ||keypusher: <sally simpson>|
AlphaZero is a chessplayer. Questions of hardware and configuration aside, it's arguably the strongest chessplayer on earth, certainly far stronger than Carlsen or any human, and it plays beautiful chess. It's never hijacked a national chess federation, or dodged an opponent, or accused the Jews of trying to take over the world. It's also a fascinating application of reinforcement learning. Why shouldn't it have fans?
<As fully explained with examples dating back to Greco by Vukovic in 'The Art of Attack in Chess.' (1965), he too took a lot of his material from earlier writers on the subject, Tarrasch, Spielmann and Alekhine...>
Since there is nothing completely new under the sun, this sort of argument can easily be used to claim that no one has learned from anyone post-Morphy. But the style of the strongest players always tends to influence everyone else. Chessplayers were surprised, in my recollection, when Kasparov came along and showed that Karpov's style was not the only style that could succeed at the very top. When Stockfish and other engines seemed to show that nearly any position could be defended, that had an effect on how humans played the game.
Now that AlphaZero has come along and shown that even Stockfish can be overcome with aggressive, dynamic play, that's also having an effect.
I think some over-the-top claims of its influence on Carlsen have been made, but he does seem to be playing rather differently this year, and the change has been welcomed by everyone, except his opponents. Has A0 had an effect on him? Yeah, I think so.
<It's a human v human game.>
This is nonsense, and it's been nonsense for decades. Why are you so afraid?
|Jun-28-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
(here we go again, usually we debate in a civil manner, let's keep it so.)
Not afraid, just bemused at the glorification being bestowed on a computer program which does not even know it's playing a game.
First this bit:
"It's never hijacked a national chess federation, or dodged an opponent...etc."
You are correct there, computers don't hurt, cheat or have any racial discrimination - only people have that particular gift.
"...AlphaZero has come along and shown that even Stockfish can be overcome with aggressive, dynamic play."
I howled like a lost dog in the wilderness for years decrying the faults in Stockfish. Alpha is highlighting these defects.
Thank you Alpha. I'm a human with a ton of baggage, the last three letters 'age'. being my biggest suitcase.
(I'm 68 on June 30th K.P. - I'll be touring in the desolate blissful peaceful wastes of north Scotland - but you can still wish me a Happy Birthday.)
Where was I?....Oh yes thanking Alpha because it can calculate deeper without tiring, without worrying about winning or losing and frying S.F's chips (fish and chips...geddit...).
"... no one has learned from anyone post-Morphy."
We could go back to Greco. Every combo played in one form or another can be found in the manuscripts of Greco.
Greco's analysis is dodgy (all the games are made up) but the idea behind the combo's are sound.
Later players came along used these combo's in different settings and then figured out and taught how to set them up by looking for landmarks in positions.
As decades passed the level of the game rose higher and higher not only opening analysis but in the areas of positional play, endgame theory and dynamic play.
Alpha is showing us nothing new, it's been infront of us all the time. This Alpha tool is simply blowing fresh (and welcome) air.
I cannot credit Carlsen's amazing run in the past six months down to Alpha. (I think we agree there) He is a genius who blows hot and cold.
His cold makes him a standard good GM.and admits when he blows cold he's been lucky. When he is hot he is magnificent.
"....and it plays beautiful chess."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you like what it does, then so be it. Afraid I cannot get excited about a machine beating another machine (Stockfish) which I know was flawed.
Need to see Alpha playing a 3rd choice move in a lost position going for a swindle. That is human v human chess. (our game) playing v human foibles.
That to me from a computer would be, for want of another word, 'beautiful' because it's not the move but the idea behind it I've always found beautiful and stimulating, Alpha does not have ideas.
Reply soon mate, at noon tomorrow the mobile is switched off and I'm off planet till the end of next week.
|Jun-28-19|| ||keypusher: We're not arguing, because there's nothing to argue about. You're just bleating. The tiresome <why don't they play @#$% traps??> schtick doesn't come in until almost the end, so that's progress.|
Anyway, I've pointed out Stockfish vs AlphaZero, 2018 a few times. That's as close as a computer can come to playing as badly as you want it to.
<Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you like what it does, then so be it. Afraid I cannot get excited about a machine beating another machine (Stockfish) which I know was flawed.>
You should be ashamed to write something so head-poundingly dumb.
Sorry I couldn't stay polite.
|Jun-28-19|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi K.P.
Never said **** traps, I'm talking about a swindle based on a two move trick when a player realises he going down and switches into rat mode.
You can set traps when you are winning, level or losing and you can have such a thing as coincidental trap.
I want it to realise it is losing and go for a roll of the dice. A swindle, which is a very important part of human - human chess. It even has it's wiki page.
Never seen the game you linked to, Thanks. I'll reply there as it is more relevant. Stockfish vs AlphaZero, 2018.
|Jun-29-19|| ||FSR: <Sally Simpson> I wrote that article, one of my best.|
|Jun-29-19|| ||Count Wedgemore: My compliments, <FSR>. Terrific article.|
|Jun-30-19|| ||Diademas: Happy birthday <Sally>|
|Jul-01-19|| ||Dionysius1: I hardly think so <Sally> ;-) And slightly belated happy birthday!|
|Jul-01-19|| ||rajaonn: That's a great wiki article FSR !!! . I will have to slowly go thru the positions to know the history of Swindles from some great ace men of chess. Thanks sally for showing us this|
|Jul-01-19|| ||ChessMan94: I don't know why but I always like it when Carlsen beats Giri. Me thinks Giri is an overrated GM.|
|Jul-03-19|| ||FSR: Thanks, rajaonn and Count Wedgemore!|
|Jul-03-19|| ||csmath: <I don't know why but I always like it when Carlsen beats Giri. Me thinks Giri is an overrated GM.>|
A lot of people do not like Giri. That is because he talks too much.
All of the elite GMs (and all chess players by that matter) are full of themselves so they are more likeable when they keep their mouth shut. Giri is still too young to do that but he might learn that in time though some older guys (Kramnik, Kasparov ...) never did learn that. :-)
|Jul-04-19|| ||perfidious: <csmath...All of the elite GMs (and all chess players by that matter) are full of themselves so they are more likeable when they keep their mouth shut....>|
During my playing career, I met two world champions and got to play a number of GMs. The titleholders were both regarded as likeable in their day and did not disappoint in that regard.
Some of the worst offenders in this way in my experience have been averagely good (1800-2000) players who, as you say, had overblown egos. For the most part, the stronger players I have known were well aware they could play and had no need to advertise.
In the 1984 tournament book of the Canadian Closed, Danny Kopec wrote appreciatively in his thumbnail sketch of Kevin Spraggett, noting that he was one instance of a strong player who did not come it over on other players at all, whereas this was not necessarily the case with other participants in that zonal.
<...Giri is still too young to do that but he might learn that in time though some older guys (Kramnik, Kasparov ...) never did learn that. :-)>
During long experience at poker, I have seen plenty of blowhards and braggarts--by no means is this chirping confined to the young.
|Jul-04-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
It is a very good article.
I'v often used and preached option 2.
(2) Do not be afraid of losing. "Once you've accepted that your position is lost, you should be in a position of psychological strength."
Sometimes the worst thing you can have is a technically won game. I used to play the Latvian with the idea of getting a lost (but very active) position ASAP.
The knack is, as you say, don't be afraid of losing. It's only a game. Enjoy yourself.
|Jul-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: Pearls of wisdom
<Sally Simpson: ***
(2) Do not be afraid of losing. ...>
Well, if you are afraid of losing, just do not play.
<Sometimes the worst thing you can have is a technically won game.>
Well, paraphrasing Tarrasch, I suppose.
<I used to play the Latvian with the idea of getting a lost (but very active) position ASAP. >
ah yes, that is original. what's the score?
|Jul-05-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Score with Latvian was good. Won a lot more than I lost, very few draws but funnily enough got two draws v Leonard Shamkovich and Jacob Aagaard in simuls with the Latvian. I was all ready to play it v Adorjan in 1974 but he opened 1.d4. Pity I may have got another mention in the Black is OK series.
Recall a Scottish Chess magazine from the late 70's saying the juniors are playing the Latvian and losing and blaming me for starting a craze. (much like everyone did for a few months after Miles did his 1...a6 v Karpov. The copycats got walloped and that craze soon died out.)
Strangly enough never scored too well with the pure Latvian in reverse. (about 50-50) 1.e4 Nf6 2,f3(!?) e5.3.f4!
click for larger view
One of my efforts there does get a mention in the 'Black is OK' series, a loss, G Chandler vs J B Henderson, 1994 (another J.B.!)
"Do not be afraid of losing...."
Is not a pre-game feeling it's when you finally admit to yourself you have cocked things up during a game. (in the above game my failure to play Kb1 because I thought I could save a tempo - some you win...some you lose.)
So go for a trick/trap or two, might as well, you are lost, no pressure, no fear. Hence my last throw of the dice from the above game here...
click for larger view
I played 32.Rxd4 I recall seeing 35...b4 coming when I played it and thinking how unfair is that? But I won/swindled quite a lot of lost games. I don't mind giving a few back if a swindle fails, the important thing is I spotted it and tried it. I've won from a lot worse positions. Never underestimate the human ability to find the losing move from a choice of good moves. (another Tarrasch paraphrase.)
Do you/did you have a pet line that scored well.
|Jul-07-19|| ||Alibaba2007: Move 9 was not accurate as it lead to an unfavourable exchange, trading h4 for c6 pawn goes against basic strategy of this line. Another serie of moves lead white pieces in the wrong side of the board. Kc3 instead of Kfd2 would have promissed good play for white.|
|Jul-07-19|| ||Eyal: <Move 9 was not accurate as it lead to an unfavourable exchange, trading h4 for c6 pawn goes against basic strategy of this line. Another serie of moves lead white pieces in the wrong side of the board. Kc3 instead of Kfd2 would have promissed good play for white.>|
9.Nfd2 was actually a nice idea - one of its main points is not allowing Black to establish a strong bishop on g4 (following e5) which can't be challenged by h3 (one of the drawbacks of 6.h4). The trade of h4 for c6 was indeed not a great idea, but that was the "fault" of 12.Qf3, which wasn't forced by any means. Instead, White could get a good game with <12.Bd2!> (Stokfish's top recommendation) and castling q-side, e.g. 12...Bxc4 13.dxc4 Qd4 14.Qe2 Nxh4 15.g3 Ng6 and now the key move 16.f4! limiting Black's counterplay.
|Jul-26-19|| ||naresb: Like it or not, there are four advantages in chess by which one player outsmarts other- material, King safety, pawn structure, piece structure.|
Generally speaking it takes at least one advantage for a winning player and one disadvantage to the losing to end the game for a decisive result!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·