Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

[Alan Baljeu]

http://www.chessintranslation.com/20...the-10th-move/

The most fascinating post-game interview ever to follow a completely boring game.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Thanks for posting this Alan; it was fascinating. I never really studied opening theory and in my games try to get people out of theory before move 3...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

http://www.chessintranslation.com/20...the-10th-move/

The most fascinating post-game interview ever to follow a completely boring game.

First time I've seen two top-level GM's talk about this.

Chess is becoming a battle between those who want to be creative over the board and those who would rather be walking encyplopedias and gain advantage by rote research and memory. The latter have had control throughout the computer / internet expansionary age, but it looks like that control might not be maintainable as more and more GMs get weary of memorization.

According to Grischuk, FIDE has entertained that pieces be able to capture en passant. I thought of this a few years ago:

In short, the rules are the same as regular chess, except that whenever any piece moves more than 1 square in any direction, it is subject to En Passant capture by any opposing piece that attacks a square it is passing over. For example, you move a Rook 4 squares along a file. One of those squares is covered by the enemy Queen. The enemy Queen may make an immediate reply of capturing the Rook on the covered square. As with regular en passant, the capture must be made immediately. Otherwise the opportunity disappears.

A couple of points:

(1) any piece or pawn, including the King, may make an en passant capture (for the King, this means not moving into check in the process).

(2) Knights are immune to en passant captures. They can logically be pictured as "jumping" to their destination squares and thus don't actually occupy any intermediate squares. If Knights were subject to en passant capture, it would mean that every time one moves a Knight, the exact path of the move would have to be specified. That would be annoying. The logical exemption for them is very convenient! It also makes Knights possibly more powerful or valuable than Bishops!

(3) en passant captures may be chained! You move your Rook 4 squares to capture a Knight, the Rook gets en passant captured by the enemy Queen on the first square it passes over (which means the captured Knight is reinstated), but you en passant capture the enemy Queen on a square that the Queen passes over (let's say you have that square covered with a Bishop) to make the en passant capture of the Rook! Which means the Rook gets reinstated WHERE IT CAPTURED THE KNIGHT, and the Knight once again is captured. There is no limit to the chaining of en passant captures. If in this example your Bishop can be en passant captured by an enemy pawn, you opponent may do so, which reinstates his Queen capturing your Rook, which removes your Rook from the board and reinstates the enemy Knight that the Rook originally captured!

As you can see from this, you would have to be very aware of all the squares your pieces cover at all times and be aware of all squares they are passing over in their moves! This game I believe would be very very difficult to master and dominate. Not to mention, game notation.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Over the years, World Champions (eg Capablanca, Fischer) down to the worst patzers have proposed ways to 'improve' chess. Usually this amounted to complicating the game beyond recognition.
Allow me to add my own version of 'improvement'. This was something I tried with Bruce Amos at the Hart House chess club back in the late 60's.
*** Simply transpose the placement of Black's king and queen at the start of the game. Thus the white king sits opposite the black queen, and the white queen opposite the black king. In such a game, both players will tend to castle short on opposite sides, leading to strong attacking games on opposite sides of the board. Needless to say, all existing opening theory goes out the window! I may even try this in one of our Saturday Rapids at Mom's Cafe. Please try this at home!:) Let me know what you think.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

One set of tie-breakers just ended - both draws. Looks like another one is about to start (as of 8:05 am EDT).

http://kazan2011.fide.com/live-games.html

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Grischuk and Kramnik just drew their 2nd tiebreaker game in 14 moves.

[John Coleman]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Beat me to it, Hugh. 14 moves? What is Grischuk waiting for, the blitz Armageddon? Can't really blame Kramnik, who was playing black.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Kamsky and Gelfand also drew their second tiebreaker.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

I've lost track of where they are in tiebreaks, but Kamsky won the only decisive game I've seen, and it looks like they are ready to start another rapid game.

[John Coleman]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Grischuk-Kramnik drew again, this time in 8 moves. Are they intentionally making a mockery of the tiebreak process?

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

If they are still tied after 4 rapid games (as are Grischuk and Kramnik - and if Gelfand beats Kamsky in game 4), a series of a maximum of five pairs of 5-minute-plus-3-second increment games will be played.

If it's still tied, one game of 5 minutes (for Black) vs 4 minutes (for White), and 3-second increments after move 60 only.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Gelfand won the 4th rapid tiebreaker, so both matches have gone into blitz matches.

Grischuk and Gelfand have won the first games of the first 2-game blitz matches.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Hugh,
If you go to the start of this thread, you will see that it was about chess varients. You have effectively hijacked the thread to discus the current matches. Please try to avoid hijacking in the future. Thanks.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

Over the years, World Champions (eg Capablanca, Fischer) down to the worst patzers have proposed ways to 'improve' chess. Usually this amounted to complicating the game beyond recognition.
Allow me to add my own version of 'improvement'. This was something I tried with Bruce Amos at the Hart House chess club back in the late 60's.
*** Simply transpose the placement of Black's king and queen at the start of the game. Thus the white king sits opposite the black queen, and the white queen opposite the black king. In such a game, both players will tend to castle short on opposite sides, leading to strong attacking games on opposite sides of the board. Needless to say, all existing opening theory goes out the window! I may even try this in one of our Saturday Rapids at Mom's Cafe. Please try this at home!:) Let me know what you think.

With current chess understanding and technology, it wouldn't take 10 years to master one fischer-random setup. If full FR was in force, every game randomized, then analysis could go deep, but people wouldn't remember it. A 6 game FR match would invariably go to the player who played better chess, rather than the one who chose the better openings before the game started. There would be fewer top-level draws. But still there would be lots of draws because those GM's know how to neutralize an advantage.

Swapping one king and queen as you suggest is another thing entirely. If both castle kingside (Ke1-g1 and Kd1-b1) we have a double-edged opposite-wing attack, which leads to many decisive games. Otherwise, if Ke1-g1 and Kd1-f1, white has an advantage of the superior castle. I would guess it's much harder to draw this variation.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Kramnik, Grischuk: computer prep makes winning too hard

With current chess understanding and technology, it wouldn't take 10 years to master one fischer-random setup. If full FR was in force, every game randomized, then analysis could go deep, but people wouldn't remember it. A 6 game FR match would invariably go to the player who played better chess, rather than the one who chose the better openings before the game started. There would be fewer top-level draws. But still there would be lots of draws because those GM's know how to neutralize an advantage.

Swapping one king and queen as you suggest is another thing entirely. If both castle kingside (Ke1-g1 and Kd1-b1) we have a double-edged opposite-wing attack, which leads to many decisive games. Otherwise, if Ke1-g1 and Kd1-f1, white has an advantage of the superior castle. I would guess it's much harder to draw this variation.

I don't follow your notation. If both sides castle short, you get Ke1-g1(White) and Kd8 - b8(Black). And yes you get very exciting attacks on opposite wings.