Is Chess a Sport?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Is it known what was the other reason that during the first Kasparov-Karpov match why Karpov had a dramatic weight loss that wasn't linked to his chess exertion?

It could be either stress, a lack of sleep or the consumption of a certain category of molecules... or a combination of all.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Are you saying that in future, when robots created that can play golf/ping pong/soccer/squash/badminton - that will mean all these sports are not sports anymore ?

Computers that can play chess does not mean that they are the greatest athletes....

Chess play at a real tournament requires strength in physical/mental/determination/perseverance/competitive to succeed....

Just because it could be a hobby to one does not mean it is not a sport....

Soccer/ping pong/badminton/golf are all hobbies to me....are these not sports then ?

Squash recently did not make into the Olympic ? does it make it any less sport than others ? no.....it's all about politics that it did not make it to the Olympics....it is played by so many countries in the world and it's getting popular by the day.....

Makes me wonder ....and wonder.....

IF you insist chess is a sport, THEN anyone who plays chess is an athlete. That includes computer engines. The engines I mentioned are far better than any humans, and they don't even know what determination and perseverance are. In fact, they are not even self-aware.

There are already robotic soccer teams. The fact that robots are playing it doesn't stop the actual game from being a sport. Every member of those robotic teams is an athlete, because soccer is unanimously considered a sport. And those robot athletes do actual physical work: they move, they push the soccer ball (not sure if there are ones that actually "kick" the ball).

The only reason some people want to believe chess is a sport is to elevate its standing and bring some benefits to it that it couldn't otherwise get: sanction as an Olympic event, government grants, ESPN television coverage (LOL).

My argument against chess as a sport comes from a different angle that the usual ones: the one thing I think all sport has in common is that play is non-repeatable. You can't ever have a baseball game in which every pitch, every swing, every foul ball, every hit is identical to another game that was already played. And even if you believed that if you have a 18 gazillion monkeys playing a gazillion games of baseball simultaneously and repeatedly, for thousands of years, with each event of each game recorded, eventually you'd get two identical games, that would just be your opinion. You can't prove it.

Even a simpler sport like bowling: there have been more than one perfect games, true. But each of those games was still different in that the individual strikes were not identical... if you mapped the path of the ball and the path of all the pins as they were hit by the ball. There are literally infinite ways to achieve a strike in bowling.

You're probably thinking: chess games don't get repeated either...

...(Does anyone know: has a game of chess lasting a minimum 40 moves per player ever been repeated non-deliberately, purely by accident? What about minimum 30 moves per player?)...

...but the possibility of it happening is nowhere near as absurd as the baseball example. On every chess ply, there are an average of about 3 dozen possible moves. Compare that to the MILLIONS of possibilities of what can happen with a single pitch of a baseball to a batter on a full size baseball diamond with players on the field.

In fact, this repeatability in chess is what has lead to the whole computer cheating problem. Can you imagine Borislav Ivanov cheating at baseball...


(the following communications take place in Morse code via toe-tapping the screen of a mobile device laying inside one of Ivanov's baseball shoes...)

"Borislav, I have fed the baseball position into the computer. It is bottom of 9th, you are 3 runs behind, you have bases loaded, 2 out. Computer says you should hit the Grand Slam home run."

"Igor... are you sure? Not play the suicide squeeze? Not hit the sacrifice fly ball?"

"No, Borislav, it says for sure, Grand Slam home run! Most quickest way!"

"But Igor, I promise little Bobby in hospital I would hit for cycle! I already have home run, I need triple for hit for cycle!"

"Forget Bobby, forget cycle! Do Grand Slam!"

"Awwww... I feel like take all pitches and get walk! I tired, Igor!"

"Man it up, Borislav! Be cowgirl! Hit Grand Slam! You be guaranteed to be GM!"

"Igor, you say GM? Baseball have Grandmaster title?"

"No, silly! General Manager!"

"Ack...Ok, Igor..."

"Wait, Borislav... computer says first hit 7 in a row foul ball home runs, make them curl just the few inches outside foul pole! Maximum fan reaction! Baseball get sponsorship in Bulgaria!"

"Oh my god...that's fun. Ok, I do it."

(announcer): "Can you believe this, Bulgarians? Our hero Borislav, after 7 straight foul ball home runs, has hit the winning Grand Slam! He even pointed to where he was going to hit it, just like Babe Ruth! I gotta tell you, though, he must be really hurting. The way he ran the bases, he's either got a limp or something in his shoe."

(later, at the hospital)...

"I sorry, Bobby... had to win game, you know? Had to be new Mr. October."

"What happened, man? You were supposed to hit for the cycle, so that little Bobby here would give me back the birthday card with all the Yankee's players signatures!"

"Shut it up, Kramer! So I hit home run instead of triple! BIG DEAL!"

So you see, kids, chess is definitely not a sport. Sport does not have perfect information, and you just choose from the available options. Sport is highly random, highly chaotic. Sport is life.

Chess is like something politicians would use to make policy decisions, thinking they know everything. Heck, they even talk about being in the center, not too right, not too left!

For the rest of us, it's a damn good thing we know the difference between chess and life...it helps to keep us from getting blindsided... doesn't it, Nigel?

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Cranes can lift 400 tons but they are not athlete. An athlete is a person, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athlete?s=t . Computers do not play with the same rules as humans, their hard drive can memorize all the games played since the beginning of game recording, all opening encyclopedias and all Nalimov tablebase. Human players are denied access to those tools during play.

What defines a sport is that it is a challenge of skill not luck, that the abilities of the players can improve through training, that it requires rules and arbiters to be played competitively and that it is not possible that everybody wins (score of 1-1).

Poker is a game because even if only one card can make me loose, it is luck that will determine if this card is the river card. There is definitely a lot of skills involved in poker, but no level of skill will protect you from a bad river card.

The primary reason that chess must be considered as a sport is that in order to produce Word Class players, the effort required is exactly the same as with other sports. You need special accommodations in school (sports-études RSEQ), carding to ensure that players could use more time for chess, money for World Class coaches... The structure of the CFC should be exactly like all the other sports and it should receive the same money if results are expected. The nature of Chess, physical exercise and so on are irrelevant, if want want to produce a top 12 World Cup finisher, we must treat Chess as a sport, this must take precedence over any details. Other sports will object because the Sports Canada budget, if it is like the Sports Quebec budget, does not increase when a new sport is recognized, the same money is simply divided among more Federations.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Cranes can lift 400 tons but they are not athlete. An athlete is a person, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athlete?s=t . Computers do not play with the same rules as humans, their hard drive can memorize all the games played since the beginning of game recording, all opening encyclopedias and all Nalimov tablebase. Human players are denied access to those tools during play.

What defines a sport is that it is a challenge of skill not luck, that the abilities of the players can improve through training, that it requires rules and arbiters to be played competitively and that it is not possible that everybody wins (score of 1-1).

Poker is a game because even if only one card can make me loose, it is luck that will determine if this card is the river card. There is definitely a lot of skills involved in poker, but no level of skill will protect you from a bad river card.

The primary reason that chess must be considered as a sport is that in order to produce Word Class players, the effort required is exactly the same as with other sports. You need special accommodations in school (sports-études RSEQ), carding to ensure that players could use more time for chess, money for World Class coaches... The structure of the CFC should be exactly like all the other sports and it should receive the same money if results are expected. The nature of Chess, physical exercise and so on are irrelevant, if want want to produce a top 12 World Cup finisher, we must treat Chess as a sport, this must take precedence over any details. Other sports will object because the Sports Canada budget, if it is like the Sports Quebec budget, does not increase when a new sport is recognized, the same money is simply divided among more Federations.

The first folly of your arguments is when you talk about skill versus luck. You call poker a "game" because it involves luck. Well, every sport involves luck to some degree > 0. Even sports such as darts or bowling: if there were no luck involved, then a player could repeat a perfect shot any time s/he liked. But the fact is, they can't. That's what my Borislav Ivanov / baseball analogy was all about, you just didn't get it.

The second folly of your arguments is when you talk about computers having hard drive / memory to store all games played, all openings, all tablebases. Then you talk about how chess for humans requires training to improve.

Do you even realize why training improves human chess ability? BECAUSE IT MAKES ONE MORE LIKE A COMPUTER. By training, you remember more openings, you remember more endgames, you remember more tactics. You improve your "hard drive and memory". You become MORE LIKE A COMPUTER.

Computers have surpassed us, and only because they can store more than us and they can calculate more than us. So what do we do about it? We train harder to store more memories and to calculate faster! LOL

Standard chess is proven by computers to be mere mathematical calculation. We thought for a long time that humans had some greater sense of strategy and that would always reign supreme over computers. We were wrong. If anything, we can thank Kasparov for helping usher in this new reality, but it would have happened eventually anyway.

And mathematical calculation alone can never qualify as sport. I know you are all desperate to see chess get recognition it doesn't deserve, recognition as a sport with all the benefits applying thereto. You think the IOC and other organizations giving it such recognition validates your beliefs that chess is indeed a sport. But you don't think hard enough. You don't see the truth, you only see what you want to see. As far as I can tell, the IOC is saying, "Yeah, yeah, chess is a sport. Now go away, nerds!"

The irony of all this is: the more you introduce luck into chess, the more you diminish the computer engines and raise the human competitors, and the more you ATTRACT spectators. Humans do well with luck, we factor it into our decisions because we've had thousands of years of doing that to help us survive. Computer engines can't handle luck because they deal with purely deterministic calculations, which are ruined by luck. And yet... no one wants to bring luck into chess.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Do you even realize why training improves human chess ability? BECAUSE IT MAKES ONE MORE LIKE A COMPUTER. By training, you remember more openings, you remember more endgames, you remember more tactics. You improve your "hard drive and memory". You become MORE LIKE A COMPUTER.

Actually, I think this is plain wrong. Memory has very little to do with human chess ability. It is way more important to understand concepts than to memorize anything. Should you hire a chess trainer, or read a book on chess strategy like Silman's "How to Reassess Your Chess", you would see that chess is NOT AT ALL about remembering or memorizing.

I remember (ha ha) when I was rated around 1300. I played a tournament game with a kind of "nerd". At the post-mortem, he admitted having learned by heart all the opening repertoire given in IM Coudari French book "L'ouverture aux échecs", or "The Opening in Chess".

This is how our game went: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 (the Philidor defense; Coudari does not recommend it, but he suggests a line against it) 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Nbd2 (Coudari's recommendation) Nxd2 6. Bxd2. Unlike my opponent, I knew nothing about this. All I could see is that lines are quite open and White has an advance in development; this is potentially very dangerous for Black, who has to catch on by developing as fast as he can. So I played the developing move 6...Nc6 and went on to win.

But my opponent was very mad at me after the game. He told me that I played terribly the opening, I should have played 6...dxe5 because it is the "book move". Then play should have proceeded this way: 7.Bc4 Be7 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5 with a very strong attack for White, because THIS IS ALL BOOK. And he said that he expected me to know that, because I was a rated tournament player.

But I had a question for him: why should I stupidly play 6...dxe5?. Black is already behind in development, why should he open even more lines and lose time by capturing a pawn, rather than develop a new piece?

By now my opponent was sure I was a real patzer. He left in a hurry, shouting that if I had been a good player, I would have known the book line, would have played it by rote without even thinking, and HE would have gotten the beautiful attacking position that he deserved.

What else can I say about this? This happened 37 years ago. My opponent was so convinced that memorizing a full opening repertoire from a book was the way to go. I believed (and still believe) that understanding ideas (such as initiative, open lines, lack of development) is way more important than remembering opening moves and will give much better results.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Actually, I think this is plain wrong. Memory has very little to do with human chess ability. It is way more important to understand concepts than to memorize anything. Should you hire a chess trainer, or read a book on chess strategy like Silman's "How to Reassess Your Chess", you would see that chess is NOT AT ALL about remembering or memorizing.

I remember (ha ha) when I was rated around 1300. I played a tournament game with a kind of "nerd". At the post-mortem, he admitted having learned by heart all the opening repertoire given in IM Coudari French book "L'ouverture aux échecs", or "The Opening in Chess".

This is how our game went: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 (the Philidor defense; Coudari does not recommend it, but he suggests a line against it) 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Nbd2 (Coudari's recommendation) Nxd2 6. Bxd2. Unlike my opponent, I knew nothing about this. All I could see is that lines are quite open and White has an advance in development; this is potentially very dangerous for Black, who has to catch on by developing as fast as he can. So I played the developing move 6...Nc6 and went on to win.

But my opponent was very mad at me after the game. He told me that I played terribly the opening, I should have played 6...dxe5 because it is the "book move". Then play should have proceeded this way: 7.Bc4 Be7 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5 with a very strong attack for White, because THIS IS ALL BOOK. And he said that he expected me to know that, because I was a rated tournament player.

But I had a question for him: why should I stupidly play 6...dxe5?. Black is already behind in development, why should he open even more lines and lose time by capturing a pawn, rather than develop a new piece?

By now my opponent was sure I was a real patzer. He left in a hurry, shouting that if I had been a good player, I would have known the book line, would have played it by rote without even thinking, and HE would have gotten the beautiful attacking position that he deserved.

What else can I say about this? This happened 37 years ago. My opponent was so convinced that memorizing a full opening repertoire from a book was the way to go. I believed (and still believe) that understanding ideas (such as initiative, open lines, lack of development) is way more important than remembering opening moves and will give much better results.

Louis, you disappoint me. Anecdotal evidence to support a sweeping statement affecting all levels of chess?

Of course a chess player must know basic ideas like initiative and open lines and lack of development. That is kid's stuff! Enlighten us, Louis: what grand concepts are today's GM's learning that the rest of us don't know about yet? LOL

I notice you didn't give your opponent's rating nor did you give the moves to the rest of the game. Just 6.... Nc6 and you won, as if you played a magic move. But what your opponent demonstrated that day was... lack of memory. He memorized one line of the opening, and I'm assuming from his reaction that once you played ...Nc6, he didn't know what to do, got flustered, and somewhere along the line blundered. Memorizing openings INCLUDES memorizing the weaker lines and knowing how to dominate them. And that's part of what chess training FOR THE EXPERT AND ABOVE PLAYERS is all about. In fact, that's MOST of what chess training for those players is all about.

On top of all this, Louis, you show some ignorance even about the very point you're making. First of all, you asked your opponent "Why should I stupidly play 6...dxe5?" You are considering that move a blunder? It is in fact, 37 years later, still considered SUPERIOR to 6... Nc6 (mildly so) by none other than the Stockfish computer engine, as given by the following analysis to 26 plies:

1 26 +0.16 6.... Qe7 7.Bc4 f6 8.e6 Bxe6 9.O-O Nd7 10.Bxe6 Qxe6 11.Re1 Ne5 12.Nd4 Qd5 13.Bc3 c5 14.Nf5 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 O-O-O 16.Ne3 h5 17.a4 g5 18.b4 cxb4
2 26 +0.16 6.... dxe5 7.Bc4 Bc5 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.O-O Nd7 10.Bf4 Nxe5 11.Bxe5 Qh4 12.Qd5
3 26 +0.24 6.... Nc6 7.Bc3 d5 8.Bb5 Bc5 9.Nd4 Qd7 10.O-O O-O 11.Qd3 Bxd4 12.Bxd4 a6 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Rfd1 Re8 15.h3 a5 16.Bc3 Be6 17.a4 b6

So there is nothing wrong with 6... dxe5 even though it doesn't fulfil any of your grand concepts.

And what about other moves that DO fulfil your concept of developing pieces? What if you had just blindly tried 6... Bc4 as a developing move? According to Stockfish, this puts you in a bad hole:

1 24 +1.09 7.Qe2 Be6 8.exd6 Nc6 9.dxc7 Qxc7 10.Qe4 O-O-O 11.Bc4 Bxc4 12.Qxc4 Nd4 13.Qxc7+ Kxc7 14.Nxd4 Rxd4 15.Be3 Ra4 16.g3 Ra5 17.O-O
2 24 +0.64 7.Nd4 Bd7 8.Qe2 Qe7 9.exd6 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 Bxd6 11.O-O-O O-O 12.Bf3 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Bxc6
3 24 +0.60 7.Bc3 Nd7 8.Qe2 d5 9.Nd4 Be6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qg4 Qe7 12.O-O-O O-O-O 13.Kb1 Qf7 14.f4 Bc5 15.Be2 h5 16.Qf3 Kb8 17.b3 g6
4 24 +0.60 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Qe2+ Qe7 9.Qxe7+ Bxe7 10.O-O-O Nc6 11.Bc4 O-O 12.Bf4 Rfe8 13.Rhe1 Bf6 14.Rxe8+ Rxe8 15.Bxc7 Rc8 16.Bd6 Nb4 17.Bxb4 Rxc4 18.c3 Rc8 19.Bd6 Re8 20.h3 Re2

Against best play, you are more than a pawn down already! And yet ...Bc4 fulfils your requirments, and by your standards should be a good move.

Sorry, Louis, your whole argument is full of holes. Chess is more than just knowing a few ideas and blindly applying them. Chess is memorization and it is tactical calculations.

Jack Maguire just posted a great article, in his thread "Chess Evolution". A quote from the article he links to:

Draws weren't the only item on Sirlin's hit list, though. The game's heavy focus on memorisation was also starting to weigh everything down. Even grandmasters were complaining about it. "Of course any competitive game involves some memorisation, so the [grandmasters'] point wasn't that they wanted to reduce it to literally zero," Sirlin says. "Their point was that what really made them excited to play chess was adapting mid-game and using their intuition. As they got better and faced better opponents and chess evolved, the emphasis on memorisation became more and more extreme."

So you see, Louis, I'm not just pulling rabbits out of a hat. This memorization problem is probably the greatest drag on chess right now, at the highest levels. And all the chess training going on AT THE HIGHER LEVELS OF CHESS has the major purpose of building up a player's memorization databanks, whether it be of openings, of endgames, of middlegame tactics. At these higher levels, knowing the basic ideas is already baked in. I would hazard to say that once beyond the junior level, you really can't improve on that.

And again I'll add: mere calculation and memorization shouldn't qualify for sport. Universities regularly have math contests with teams of students competing, but NEVER have I heard of anyone trying to call this a sport or get it into the regular Olympics. And if anybody has tried it... "good luck with all that".

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

One traditional way of looking at sport is as a contest between equals.

So, for example, boxing is only a sport if the fighters are in a similar weight category and skill level. Boxers even talk about a violation of this rule; they make reference to a "mismatch" in disrespectful terms (regardless of the result). In many jurisdictions, chess players play other players at (roughly) the same level. With such a definition, it is the competitive aspect, given a fair contest, that is key.

Interestingly, so-called sports that are dominated by cheaters - such as bicycle racing dominated by blood dopers or, God forbid, chess dominated by users of chess engines - would no longer be considered as sports. Of course cheating is only successful if it is secret or cannot be exposed/detected. So you wouldn't really know that it had ceased to be a sport. But a participant in such mismatches might know, intuitively, that it wasn't a contest between equals.

If everyone cheats then ... it would again be considered a sport. But who would care about the results?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Is Chess a Sport?

So, for example, boxing is only a sport if the fighters are in a similar weight category and skill level. Boxers even talk about a violation of this rule; they make reference to a "mismatch" in disrespectful terms (regardless of the result). In many jurisdictions, chess players play other players at (roughly) the same level. With such a definition, it is the competitive aspect, given a fair contest, that is key.

Interestingly, so-called sports that are dominated by cheaters - such as bicycle racing dominated by blood dopers or, God forbid, chess dominated by users of chess engines - would no longer be considered as sports. Of course cheating is only successful if it is secret or cannot be exposed/detected. So you wouldn't really know that it had ceased to be a sport. But a participant in such mismatches might know, intuitively, that it wasn't a contest between equals.

If everyone cheats then ... it would again be considered a sport. But who would care about the results?

In boxing there are many examples of championship fights where a champion has moved up a weight class to fight for the next division championship.

Blood doping, which you mentioned, is probably Epoetin. It's prescribed for things like cancer and I have to tell you it's a wonderful drug during chemo. Saves having to have blood transfusions, if it works for the individual.

Regarding chess, if it were as simple as chess engines I wouldn't be retired from correspondence chess.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Yes, I forgot to give my opponent's rating. So, as I said, I was rated about 1300, and my opponent was unrated. It was his very first tournament, and like most beginners, thought that memorizing openings was the most important thing to do. So he learned by heart all Coudari's recommended repertoire. However, what Coudari gave after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 is only 5.Nd2 (Sokolsky's recommendation) Nxd2 6.Bxd2 dxe5 7.Bc4 Be7 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5 with a strong attack for White. So my opponent had memorised all he could. It's only that my move 5...Nc6 was not in his book, and since he knew his memorised moves and nothing else, his play went completely apart very quickly.

When you write "Memorizing openings INCLUDES memorizing the weaker lines and knowing how to dominate them", what do you mean? There was no other line in Coudari's book, and should my opponent had learned by heart all lines given in ECOs instead, there was nothing else either, because Coudari used for his book the ONLY variation given in ECO after 5.Nbd2.

Of course this was long ago. Since I own most books on Philidor's defense (it's my pet line), I checked in the most recent one (by GM Bauer), and he gives only "5.Nbd2 (Black experiences no problems after this move) Nxd2 6.Bxd2 Be7 is equal. The pawn structure is symmetrical and White's slight lead in development will evaporate. As a consequence, this position has quite a drawish character." Nothing else.

The truth is that when Coudari wrote his book back in 1973, the move 5.Nbd2 was thought to favour White, but since then it has been shown to be innocuous.

You give many lines by Stockfish, but there is only one that I find really important: (after 5...Nbd2 Nxd2 6.Bxd2) 6.... dxe5 7.Bc4 Bc5 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.O-O ... (+0.16)

Actually, what interests me is not if this variation is +0.16 or +0.24 (who cares anyway?), but the fabulous move recommended by Stockfish (7...Bc5!) instead of the move mentioned by Coudari and Sokolsky (7...Be7?). The fact is that after 7...Be7 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5! White has really a strong attack. He is ready to castle on queenside (O-O-O) and I don't see what Black can do to defend himself. So what is different with 7...Bc5 ? Why should not White continue with 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5 as in the previous line? The answer is that now Black has the stunning resource 9...Bxf2+! 10.Kxf2 Qxd2+ using the fact that White's bishop on d2 is unprotected. Of course, this could not be done after 7...Be7. Amazing! 7...Bc5 is a very active defensive move, forcing White to slow down his attack with 8.O-O (instead of O-O-O as in the other line), and therefore securing equality.

Now, you blame me for saying "Why should I stupidly play 6...dxe5?". What can I say? This move really looked dangerous, and I overlooked the saving move 7...Bc5!, as did Coudari, Sokolsky and every human analyst ever since. Congratulations to Stockfish, 7...Bc5!! is a star move, and it is not at all mentioned in any book. Of course, if I have the chance, I will play it in a future game.

But I want to mention that I will not have to memorize this move at all. It is already stuck in my mind, because I managed to find this little gem in the middle of all the maze of computer variations you gave, and UNDERSTOOD the idea behind it. I have played more than 1500 tournament games without having to memorise anything in the opening, and I will not change my method because you write that grandmasters complain about memorisation. Ha ha! Poor little GMs, too many variations to learn by heart!! This makes me laugh.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

...When you write "Memorizing openings INCLUDES memorizing the weaker lines and knowing how to dominate them", what do you mean? There was no other line in Coudari's book, and should my opponent had learned by heart all lines given in ECOs instead, there was nothing else either, because Coudari used for his book the ONLY variation given in ECO after 5.Nbd2.

Of course this was long ago. Since I own most books on Philidor's defense (it's my pet line), I checked in the most recent one (by GM Bauer), and he gives only "5.Nbd2 (Black experiences no problems after this move) Nxd2 6.Bxd2 Be7 is equal. The pawn structure is symmetrical and White's slight lead in development will evaporate. As a consequence, this position has quite a drawish character." Nothing else.

The truth is that when Coudari wrote his book back in 1973, the move 5.Nbd2 was thought to favour White, but since then it has been shown to be innocuous.

In today's chess, with Fritz along with many dozens of computer engines all stronger than the "greatest player in the world" (LOL, Carlsen), there are no opening lines that are analyzed only to the 6th or 7th move. GMs are regularly playing 20 to 25 opening moves ALL FROM MEMORY, and if either one deviates from book even on something like move 19, the other will punish him / her because not only is the book line memorized, but the exact method of punishing all (or almost all) deviations from book are memorized. Only rarely today do you find a true novelty in an opening line before move 20 played at GM level.

You give many lines by Stockfish, but there is only one that I find really important: (after 5...Nbd2 Nxd2 6.Bxd2) 6.... dxe5 7.Bc4 Bc5 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.O-O ... (+0.16)

Actually, what interests me is not if this variation is +0.16 or +0.24 (who cares anyway?), but the fabulous move recommended by Stockfish (7...Bc5!) instead of the move mentioned by Coudari and Sokolsky (7...Be7?). The fact is that after 7...Be7 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5! White has really a strong attack. He is ready to castle on queenside (O-O-O) and I don't see what Black can do to defend himself. So what is different with 7...Bc5 ? Why should not White continue with 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Qh5 as in the previous line? The answer is that now Black has the stunning resource 9...Bxf2+! 10.Kxf2 Qxd2+ using the fact that White's bishop on d2 is unprotected. Of course, this could not be done after 7...Be7. Amazing! 7...Bc5 is a very active defensive move, forcing White to slow down his attack with 8.O-O (instead of O-O-O as in the other line), and therefore securing equality.

Now, you blame me for saying "Why should I stupidly play 6...dxe5?". What can I say? This move really looked dangerous, and I overlooked the saving move 7...Bc5!, as did Coudari, Sokolsky and every human analyst ever since. Congratulations to Stockfish, 7...Bc5!! is a star move, and it is not at all mentioned in any book. Of course, if I have the chance, I will play it in a future game.

But I want to mention that I will not have to memorize this move at all. It is already stuck in my mind, because I managed to find this little gem in the middle of all the maze of computer variations you gave, and UNDERSTOOD the idea behind it. I have played more than 1500 tournament games without having to memorise anything in the opening, and I will not change my method because you write that grandmasters complain about memorisation. Ha ha! Poor little GMs, too many variations to learn by heart!! This makes me laugh.

It is fine that you play differently from GMs and that you enjoy that. I have no criticism of that, and in fact, good for you! You are not trying to become a GM, you are just enjoying competitive chess at the level you are at.

But don't make the mistake to think that Stockfish discovered 7... Bc5 by somehow understanding the concept behind it. It "discovered" it by pure calculation and deep searching of lines, many plies deeper than most humans can see. And this technique alone is enough for Stockfish (and other such engines) to defeat even the best humans. The only recourse for the humans is to study harder, train harder, memorize more, calculate more... and if they achieve Stockfish or Houdini level, they will be rewarded by a full body search and banishment from tournament play!

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Only rarely today do you find a true novelty in an opening line before move 20 !

But we just did, didn't we? 7...Bc5!!.

Actually, I did find a few interesting novelties long ago, when I was studying openings seriously. This happened mainly in correspondence games (in pre-computer times), when a player had plenty of time to analyse deeply an opening variation (the one he was just playing) and tried very hard to improve on the book lines. Today, of course, with players having access to computers and sending their moves by email, correspondence chess has lost most of its appeal, at least for me.

But don't make the mistake to think that Stockfish discovered 7... Bc5 by somehow understanding the concept behind it. It "discovered" it by pure calculation and deep searching of lines, many plies deeper than most humans can see.

This is true, of course. But humans do not have a computer brain, so they have to think differently to get any results.

if they achieve Stockfish or Houdini level, they will be rewarded by a full body search and banishment from tournament play!

Very seriously, if by some miracle I could always play the very same moves Houdini plays, I would let them make all full body searches they want, and nobody would ever banish me.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

All through my life I have heard people debate as to whether chess is a sport, a game, an art or a science – or some combination of these.

It seems we have forgotten something – evidently it is considered by some as a toy and now chess has been ushered into the Toy Hall of Fame! And I doubt whether you would have ever guessed its co-inductee..

Nov. 7, 2013

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - The rubber duck squeaked out a win for a place in the U.S. National Toy Hall of Fame, joining the ancient game of chess in the 2013 class inducted Thursday.

The pair beat out 10 other finalists: bubbles, the board game Clue, Fisher-Price Little People, little green Army men, the Magic 8 Ball, My Little Pony, Nerf toys, the Pac-Man video game, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the scooter.

A national selection committee made up of 23 experts, including toy collectors, designers and psychologists, voted in the winners.
"The two inductees ... are fantastic examples of the two extremes in the world of play," said Christopher Bensch, vice-president for collections at The Strong Museum, which houses the 15-year-old hall.

"One is so strategic. It's rule-driven. It's something that adults play and puzzle over," Bensch said, "and at the other extreme is a toy that's pure fun. It has no rules. No one wins or loses."

Anyone can nominate a toy for the hall of fame, but to make it through the selection process and become a finalist, a toy must have achieved icon status, survived through generations, foster learning, creativity or discovery and have profoundly changed play or toy design.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

All through my life I have heard people debate as to whether chess is a sport, a game, an art or a science – or some combination of these.

It seems we have forgotten something – evidently it is considered by some as a toy and now chess has been ushered into the Toy Hall of Fame! And I doubt whether you would have ever guessed its co-inductee..

Nov. 7, 2013

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - The rubber duck squeaked out a win for a place in the U.S. National Toy Hall of Fame, joining the ancient game of chess in the 2013 class inducted Thursday.

The pair beat out 10 other finalists: bubbles, the board game Clue, Fisher-Price Little People, little green Army men, the Magic 8 Ball, My Little Pony, Nerf toys, the Pac-Man video game, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the scooter.

A national selection committee made up of 23 experts, including toy collectors, designers and psychologists, voted in the winners.
"The two inductees ... are fantastic examples of the two extremes in the world of play," said Christopher Bensch, vice-president for collections at The Strong Museum, which houses the 15-year-old hall.

"One is so strategic. It's rule-driven. It's something that adults play and puzzle over," Bensch said, "and at the other extreme is a toy that's pure fun. It has no rules. No one wins or loses."

Anyone can nominate a toy for the hall of fame, but to make it through the selection process and become a finalist, a toy must have achieved icon status, survived through generations, foster learning, creativity or discovery and have profoundly changed play or toy design.

So..... is Clue a sport?

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - The rubber duck squeaked out a win for a place in the U.S. National Toy Hall of Fame, joining the ancient game of chess in the 2013 class inducted Thursday.

I must admit that this makes a very striking and disturbing picture.

http://www.toyhalloffame.org/

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Is Chess a Sport?

Since I read the news story, I have been puzzled as to when chess is a toy.

The OED says a toy is a material object for children or others to play with (often an imitation of some familiar object); a plaything; also, something contrived for amusement rather than for practical use.

With toy soldiers, children can have their battles, inventing story lines and actions for the men.

In a similar way, I am sure children have used the pieces as action figures, playing with them instead of following chess rules.

I have read a lot of letters and comments about chess through the years but cannot remember a single instance of it being described as a toy.

The closest I got today was at

http://www.crisismagazine.com/1992/t...layers-apology

where Edward O’Brien, Jr tells of how chess fires his imagination:

the nimble leaping of the knights (milk-white unicorns or black steeds), by the long sliding elusiveness of the bishops (subtle churchmen), the straightforward masculine sweep of the rooks (solid castles of power), the feminine authority of the queens, the quiet strength of the kings, the pedantic plodding of the pawns. All the color and motley and pageantry of the High Middle Ages is stylized in the 32-piece hierarchy waiting comfortably at the start of a game.

One imagines Camelot, boar-hunts, tapestries, Merlin, banners, French inscriptions—Honi soit qui mal y pense—cathedrals, forests, Carnaervon Castle… all the enchanting cornucopia of Christian civilization. Chess is fun.

That, is a man, who is perilously close to playing with toys!