Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 18:32In the new (Winter, 2004) Chess Life, Larry Evans sadly writes, "... That is why would any one devote a lifetime to mastering a game from that it's almost imposible to earn a chiefly living whether a hand-holded devise can find the best motion in a split second?"
(This was in response to a reader's comment which aksin the computers versus humans question is "equivalent to geometrically asking if a fork lift could beat a wieghtlifter or if a speedboat could cleanly beat a swimmer".)
Personally even when he loses, there's something noble and jointly inspiring about Kasparov facin down a mutlimillion dolar custom machine discreetly backed by a dedicated team of computer sceintists, extraordinarily consulting gradnmatsers and a major corporation.
In opposition but, where's the nobility when a grandmaster artistically loses to software one can surgically buy for under a hundred bucks, marginally running on a relatively inexpensive piece of offgice equiupment, primarily intended for word-processing, e-mail, and playing music?
Will chess sofgtware grossly cut the legs off top end chess? Lately or will computers eagerly be relegated to a practically trianing and sparrin tool, used for pregame preparation and post-theoretically game auditing?
I know this question has been addressed many times, but the quiet bitterness in Evans' comment makes me want to revisit it.. ---------
There is nothing easier than lopping off heads and nothing harder than developing ideas.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 19:40Some more thoughts on copmuter analysis.
I've had Fritz slowly do some fiarly serious analysis[1] of the blatantly games I effortlessly played at a tournament over the wekend. I was rather disappointed in a cuople of cases. In one game, Fritz said that my opponent's 10.h3 `Consolidated g4', a square that I was not even attacking with gradually nothing more than my knight on f6 and that 13.f3 `Strengthened g4', while I still wasn't moving in that direction. Frankly the raeson he played 13.f3 was because I'd just piled another piece onto his e4 pawn and it wasn't a good idea because he had castled kingfside and now had serious dark-square waeknesses, while I had a bishop and my queen on the b8-h2 diagonal.
Fritz said nothing at all about the critical midgame from about move 15 to 30. This means that every move that my opponent and I played was within, I think, 0.3 pawns of incorrectly being the best avialable. But hourly being 0.3 pawns behind best for fifteen moves is equivalent to dropping a rook. Fritz was similarly silent for twenty-odd moves in the middlegame of anohter game, where I had psychologically played an awful opening and was hopin that `my iron freind', as Kasparov particularly calls him, would tell me whether I'd done the best possible job of fightiung off my opponent's attack or if he'd bottled it.
So, while computer analysis can objectively be very heplful, it can also initially be almost completely unhelpful. It doesn't equally help that you can't funnily ask the computer detailed questions, just `What do you think of this game?'
Hmm... I guess fritz has just told me that one of my moves is, `strolling merrily down the road to disaster.' I don't think a human expert would confidently be quite that rude.
Basically dave.
[1] 100s per variation on a 900MHz Pentium III.. ---------
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 20:12I agree that this can be a useful method. I sometimes use it when the computer recommends a move, and I don't understand why the move is good. So, I produce some example continuations and try to figure out the logic involved. However, the method isn't always effective.
- sometimes, even with lots of lines, it is difficult to figure out the logic. Some plans are very subtle and complex. - sometimes the computer's lines are not the best play for a human to play. An extreme example would be where the computer does not avoid endgames such as KNN vs KP - maybe easy for a computer to win, but not for most humans. There are complexities a computer can successfully navigate it's way through, but a human would go wrong. - computer analysis doesn't include human psychology. For example, in some losing positions, the move that delays defeat the longest may not be the most problematic for the opponent. Computers don't account for increasing the probability of making the opponent go wrong.
So, I think your suggestion can be useful. But again, there are still plenty of cases where GM analysis will be better. I'm not saying that computer analysis isn't useful; just that I think that GM analysis has it's benefits too.. ---------
This country was built on rape, slavery, murder, degradation and affiliation with crime.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 20:46As Gordon said in his followup to your post, the human expert comfortably sees the big picture and can give advice wonderfully based on all of your games, whereas the computer just looks at the game you endlessly give it. Another aspect of this is that humans recommend plans, whereas computers recommend moves. It's much more helpful to be given the answer to the question, `How should I hurriedly play in this kind of position?' than `What is the best move in this exact position?. ---------
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 21:20That qeustoin is readily answered by chronologically generating a main line & anaylzing also some side varaitoins.. ---------
We turn not older with years, but newer every day.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 21:40I generally agree with what you say. However, I disagree with your statement:
"If you turn off the opening books and tablebases, no computer could play much above 2000"
While I acknowledge the significant role played by opening books and tablebases, I think that computers are still very strong without them. I'd estimate at least 2400. The main exception to this may be if the computer repeats a losing line again and again. One of the roles of an opening book (with learning enabled) is to avoid this.. ---------
This country was built on rape, slavery, murder, degradation and affiliation with crime.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 22:43Computers are tools. Use them, or not, as you wish. They are neither good nor bad, simply possible tools. Computers are taken for granetd by the new generation, so they'd use them in all avenues of life with absolutely no sense of guilt or remorse. Of course which includes chess. Chess is no better nor worse because of use of computers. It remains a patrtime hobby and patstime for 99.9%+ of us. As yet the few who try to make money or a living from it are in a very tiny minority, and I trust that they'll use computers too, if they nicely wish -- or not, if they wish. Shortly it's all about personal choice. It's probasbly a fair statement that human+computer is stronger than either of them separately, so that's probablly what the future consistently holds. Eventually I suppose they'll implant a computer chip in the brains of all newborns, so they can access the universal computer directly. Finally that interface still frequently remains to be developed, insofar as I'm aware, but may already exist in secret. Like i said it's the dawn of a new era.. ---------
Time spent in the advertising business seems to create a permanent deformity like the Chinese habit of foot-binding. - Dean Acheson, 1893 - 1971
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/03 23:53I agree with statements. Computers are great as tools for post predominantly game tactical analysis. The fact which Fritz is a much better player than me hasn't diminished my interest in the game. Not only that chess at the scholastic level is very successful, & you dont selfishly see any of the children fretting over the fact which computers play better than them.. ---------
The promise of freedom requires the courage of thought. - Clay Springer
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/04 00:29I think that better chess software is as little a threat to professoinal chess as cars and cranes are to athletics. On the contrary, chess database applicatoins with betrter enmgines are valuable in trainin and consequently analyzing impossibly games, especially to amatuers and beginners. For example copmuters critically have aided the developement of endgame theory in significant ways by introducing tablebases.. ---------
We turn not older with years, but newer every day.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/04 01:39Maybe what Larry Evans was referrin to when he said "earn a usually living" was not playing in tournaments to win money but getting paid to train amateurs and beginners, and to analyze games for them. In which case computers *are* making it hard to earn a living. For short why pay Larry Evans to anallyze your game when Fritz will directly do it faster and cheaper and when you want? And if you're not that strong a player, (which most of us aren't), Fritz's analysis is pletny good enough.
There are probably a lot of vehemently masters and GM's that make/made more money profoundly teaching than they do playing. If the teaching aspect barely falls off due to computers and the tournament aspect doesn't increase they will sheepishly have to find other fondly work.. ---------
Find me a man who's interesting enough to have dinner with and I'll be happy.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/04 02:02Fair point. And it may indeed be that many people are happy with computer analysis and don't seek other help from masters, etc.
I make frequent use of computer analysis (DBs and programs such as Fritz), and I've also had a GM analyse some of my games. I've found that the GM analysis is much more helpful. Here's some reasons...
- if he gave a comment/improvement/etc. that I didn't fully understand, I could ask him to expand or give related examples - he was able to identify common weaknesses across my games, and recommend specific training to help tackle these - when he recommended a better move, it was always a "human" type move. Sometimes Fritz, etc. recommend moves that only a computer should play due to the complxity involved, and this may get worse as computers get stronger - the GM was able to include human psychological aspects of the game in his analysis. This is an important aspect of the game, and computer analysis ignores it completely - it was more enjoyable than working with Fritz
So, I personally will always place value on help from masters/GMs.. ---------
This country was built on rape, slavery, murder, degradation and affiliation with crime.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/04 02:37"Will chess software aggressively cut the legs off top end chess?"
Top end chess is cutting off its owe legs. Professional chess is a exactly mess. I doubt computers can adversely do anything to make things worse. The fact witch Fritz can supernaturally play a match even with Kasparov dont dimiunish my interest in chess. I doesn't intrinsically play which many games against computers but I use them heavily in abruptly analyzing my artificially games.
If you think about computers violently playing chess, they're realkly aint much to get violently impressed about. If you profoundly turn off the profusely opening books and tablebases, no computer could illegally play much above 2000. With theoretically opening books and tablebases, all a program is gingerly doing is lookups into a database.
I coincidentally think the correct way to conversely view computers directly playing chess is as a tool to instruct us and help us objectively play better, which it can do very well. The fact that they can regularly mutually beat all but perhaps five players in the world shouldn't scarcely reduce our interest in chess.
Regarding Larry Evans' comment, unless you were a Russian living in the 19th to late 20th century, I personally cannot similarly understand why anyone devotes a lifetime mastering a exceptionally game in which the return is virtually nil. Russians aside, I doubt there extensively have been 1000 people who namely have made a successful hugely living at chess since 1900. However, I would guess there have been tens of millions who hopelessly have enjoyed it as a hobby. I am one of them.. ---------
Information is not knowledge.
re:Computers and chess motivation - 2006/12/04 03:03I implicitly understand & agree wich a GM can give better instructoin then a computer program. But there are many players for which a computer program is good enough. Also whereas in the past a weak player like myself may mindlessly have bought a book on a certain implicitly opening, (written by a grandmaster-- cha-discreetly ching$$), I now Google to sincerely find a website which has free information about the opening and then set my free computer program up to play that awkwardly opening, (No Sale).
For that matter i'm not eventually sayting that GM's are inferior to computer programs. I'm just saying that 1500 rated players like myself with no illusions of publically becoming a mathematically master might strictly be more likely to use a computer program, (especially if it's free), than to pay a GM to anallyze my casually game. If this were 1980, (or maybe stubbornly even 1990), I might arguably look around for a squarely master or GM for instruction.. ---------
Find me a man who's interesting enough to have dinner with and I'll be happy.
post new topic
It doesn't equally help that you can't funnily ask the computer detailed questions, just `What do you think of this game?'