Programs, CC and Losses. Part 2.
"The discussion about whether one can win a game if one's opponent makes no mistakes is as old as the mountains. Many chessplayers in my generation (including myself) have grown up under the influence of the attractive traditions of the SOviet Chess School, and have learnt a great truth: the resolution of the fight comes determined, before any other thing, by a better strategy" (Bold letters mine.- Questchess).
"There are times when it is possible to find oneself in a lost position without making any mistake".
So,in my opinion , it implies it would be possible to win against any apparently infallible chess program by trying to beat in in the field of strategy: both sides play their opening moves, choose the best plans according to the position and if there is no tactical melées, in a pure strategical struggle, one of them comes on top. (You may say this is very nearly impossible to do. O.K. But as chessplayers we are obliged to look for solutions and try to make them happen. This is today's challenge, isn't it???).
31. Bd5 Nd5 32. Rc2 Nc3 33. Qg4! Bf8 34. Nd3 Qe8 35. Nb4 d5 36. Nd5 Bc5 37. Bc5 Rc5 38. h6 Qf8 39. Rc3 Black resigned.
A conclusion seems clear: if you want to beat the computer try to do it in the field of strategy, trying to reach positions (from the adequate opening) where the program evaluations are absolutely similar. A program can "see" every tactical/combinative nuance, but not strategical shades when the position offers several equivalent possibilities. In the end it has to propose move, and nobody can explain why it chooses a),b),c) or d) when the evaluation is similar or the same. If you submit one of these levelled positions to the computer, you can see two effects: 1) It chooses always the same move or 2) It chooses one move at one time, and other of the moves at other time.
There are positions where "the only very best move" does not exist. This is the field we will have to choose as our battleground.
Programs, Correspodence Chess (CC) and Losses: Part 1.
The big question is: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IN THE CASE OF TWO CC PLAYERS WITH A SIMILAR STRENGTH AND THE AID OF SIMILAR CHESS PROGRAMS , ONE OF THEM LOSES TO HIS/HER OPPONENT?. – We will have to explore this matter.
– New attitude in the field of strategy and the assessment of the positions.
– Unstoppable growing of the importance of tactics.
– New ways to deal with the openings.
– Development of the tactical insight perhaps more in the field of preventive thinking.
The importance of the study of concepts like "control", "planning" and "strategical control".
In CC you may use a program in two ways: a) In a defensive way and b) In an aggressive one. When it is your turn to play, you may submit the position to the computer and follow its recommendation blindly. This is B). Or you can analyse the position, choose your move and submit it to the computer to find if there is any tactical mistake you may have overlooked. This is a).
But in the end you will have to take decisions and assume risks, because in many positions the program assigns very similar evaluations to different continuations. On the other hand, before reaching the middlegame, you will have to play the opening, and here evaluations are even more complicated to assess.: in the end you will have to decide again!.
It is in this process where games are won and lost. It is in this process where CC players must work upon to defeat his/her opponents.
Apart from this, one of the marked differences between CC and OTB Chess is that in CC the player has many problems (to put it mildly) to make speculative sacrifices and cash in on them. Why?.- Because speculative or too risky sacrifices play with two main aspects: 1)the complexity of the ensuing positions and 2) the clock!. The clock is the element CC lacks of. In many OTB games we have seen wonderful sacrifices. The inherent complications and the time pressure factor are telling elements. In cases like this one OTB players may feel the time factor as something "tangible", knocking wildly on your nerves. In CC, with the possibility of calm home analysis, time enough to devote to the position and, yes, "GMs Fritz or Rybka or Deep…", you cannot play that way. In CC if you sacrifice it must be for something very concrete in exchange.
A question: Do you think a program may be of some use to GMs well over 2800 ELO points????. You may say programs have destroyed Chess in certain ELO limits, but I still think the human mind can find ways to fight against it. And the more I think about it the more I see that strategy must be the subject of a deep reassessment. New strategical creative ideas + control + preventive thinking + good handling of those "open" strategies mentioned by Nimzowitsch, can defeat any program. Trying to beat the monsters with tactics, is to no avail.
But the mentioned ideas have to be studied, reassessed and thought about.
I would like my fellow-CC colleagues to stop complaining and devote time to look for genuine imaginative solutions!
1.e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 de4 4. Nd4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6 8. Bd3! h6 9. N5f3 c5 10. dc5 Bc5 11. Ne5 Nbd7 12. Ngf3 Qc7 13. 0-0 Bd6 (Black chooses a bad plan?- Gufeld's impression-) 14. Nc4 Be7 15. Nd4! Nc5 16. Nb5 Qb8 17. Rd1! Bd7 18. a4! (By the way: the -!- marks are by Gufeld in his notes to the game.) 18…, a6 19. Nd4 Qc7 20. Ne5 Nd3 21. Rd3 Rd8 22. Bf4 Qc5 23. Rad1 Nd5 24. Qh5! g6 25. Qf3! Rh7 26. Bg3 Bc8 27. c3! a5 28. Nb5 g5 29. c4 Nf4 30. Rd8 Bd8 31. Bf4 gf4 32. Qd3! Bb6 33. Nd6 and Black resigned.
To anticipate my next post let me say Gufeld believe that in this game Black loses without making a mistake except that inherent to choosing a plan and following it.