WCC 2012: Assessment

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

As long as players insist on playing the same couple of openings with white and the same couple of defenses with black, it will be easy for an opponent to prepare. The solution is not to embrace Fairy chess. It's for the players to broaden their repetoire in regular chess.

Players could not play the same couple of openings with Fischerandom, the different starting positions would prevent this. Until you sit down, you do not know what the position will be. And because there are so many of them, a player could not be well prepared with opening Houdini theory. And of course players ARE broadening their repertoires in regular chess, by use of Houdini, which is why we have this problem in the first place.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Things like changing the placement of the pieces in the opening position is something FIDE would have to approve. They are the ones who approve the chess titles for both over the board and correspondence chess and are the international governing body for chess.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Things like changing the placement of the pieces in the opening position is something FIDE would have to approve. They are the ones who approve the chess titles for both over the board and correspondence chess and are the international governing body for chess.

Absolutely, and change will never happen quickly. It is far too soon to dispense with the standard opening position entirely, but it IS time to recognize that it is quickly becoming outdated and that a gradual shift to Fischerandom is necessary. FIDE should begin to work toward serious, well-funded Fischerandom tournaments, and a world championship of Fischerandom. My suspicion is that the chess public will gradually come to enjoy the excitement of Fischerandom far more, and standard chess far less. Eventually standard chess will wither away completely and be replaced by Fischerandom.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Players could not play the same couple of openings with Fischerandom, the different starting positions would prevent this. Until you sit down, you do not know what the position will be. And because there are so many of them, a player could not be well prepared with opening Houdini theory. And of course players ARE broadening their repertoires in regular chess, by use of Houdini, which is why we have this problem in the first place.

I agree some replacement for standard chess will eventually become necessary, for whatever reason(s). Just not enough proof yet that now should be the time.

Players broading their repertoires is, as Gary suggests, a possible effective solution to any possible Houdini-phobia (or as Jean put it, paranoia). Players broading their repertoires is naturally not why we have this 'problem' (if it is one) in the first place. Recently, the reason for broading repertoires has been due to databases, not Houdini and the like, at least according to books I've read. Personally I'm all for broader repertoires, if only so that player don't bore themselves, each other and the spectators and fans (at least the paying ones) by playing the same small set of openings. In any case, even the all theory of just one complex opening can be remembered by nobody, as Krasenkov once put it in his book the Open Ruy Lopez.

I think by now, some points by posters debating about the death of chess are starting to be repeated over and over. Perhaps we've just about exhausted the subject of the death of chess!?

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

The WC match was entirely about players trying new openings, and still getting thwarted by preparation geared to neutralize the anticipated new openings. "Broadening" apparently didn't have much effect.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

The WC match was entirely about players trying new openings, and still getting thwarted by preparation geared to neutralize the anticipated new openings. "Broadening" apparently didn't have much effect.

Other posters have pointed out that many of the games were not fully played out, even if the positions were dull in at least some cases.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

As chess is currently played, the vast majority of decisive games will be a result of one player out-Houdiniing the opponent, not outplaying him. How exciting!

You are kidding and leading us on, right ? Do you really believe that what makes a top player is his ability to memorize computer generated opening variations ?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

I also like the idea of playing the tie-break before the match. It certainly makes for an exciting start to a match!
However, it can be argued (successfully I think) that blitz or rapid games have no business playing a role in a World championship match. It is like breaking a tie in a golf tournament with a long drive contest. Instead playing supplementary holes is the normal way to break those ties, but it is the same kind of golf, it is not playing mini-putt.
So once we agree that someone must get draw odd, without resorting to fast games, what is left is giving the champion the odd. Why ? Because he has earned that right the hard way by becoming the champion. It is up to the challenger to prove that he is better, not the other way around.

The problem here is the idea that there must be one AND ONLY ONE World Champion at any time. If we want to avoid tie-breaks via rapid games, simply allow that a tie at the end of regulation games means a sharing of the World Championship.

And so the next WC cycle would produce another qualifier, and the WC match would be a 3-way match.

And if that match ends up tied, either 2-way or 3-way, you have another shared World Championship.

But if one is going to insist on a single World Champion, then just as happens in many sports, the way to decide it between two or more equal opponents may come down to the equivalent of a hockey shootout.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

You are kidding and leading us on, right ? Do you really believe that what makes a top player is his ability to memorize computer generated opening variations ?

I agree that I may have chosen my words badly. Of course fabulous technique is required to win won games at the top levels, but it seems to me that many won games are being, and will continue more and more to be, won because of someone being out-Houdinied rather than outplayed (or out-homeworked). And as I have stated, this fear is and will continue more and more to lead to fast simplifications and exchanges leading to dull draws. Players will not want to risk being out-Houdinied unless they absolutely must play for a win.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

If this were true Brad, the effect should be even more profound at the amateur level. Because playing like a Houdini will blow every opponent out of the water.

Is it true? Are there players who study opening books, run Houdini through variations, and get a killer opening repertoire? They get an opening advantage every game, and if they have master-level playing skills they generally win with these advantages?

In the end it still comes down to the skill of playing the position. Does the player know how to exploit advantages, or neutralize disadvantages, or generate complications that befuddle the opponent and convert that to a win?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

I agree that I may have chosen my words badly. Of course fabulous technique is required to win won games at the top levels, but it seems to me that many won games are being, and will continue more and more to be, won because of someone being out-Houdinied rather than outplayed (or out-homeworked). And as I have stated, this fear is and will continue more and more to lead to fast simplifications and exchanges leading to dull draws. Players will not want to risk being out-Houdinied unless they absolutely must play for a win.

You question your words when you should question your ideas and your judgment, which is admitedly somewhat more demanding. You say that games are won because of computer preparation, and then you also put the blame on computers for drawn games. There is simply no evidence to support such claims. Very few games are actually won because of opening preparation, even at the very top level. There are won almost every time through hard work at the board. Period.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

You question your words when you should question your ideas and your judgment, which is admitedly somewhat more demanding. You say that games are won because of computer preparation, and then you also put the blame on computers for drawn games. There is simply no evidence to support such claims. Very few games are actually won because of opening preparation, even at the very top level. There are won almost every time through hard work at the board. Period.

Perhaps we should all revisit the link that someone posted on Chesstalk recently:

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

Important excerpts from the article, which is quoting Kramnik and Grischuk during their Candidates match:

"In the press conference afterwards Vladimir Kramnik himself identified this as the problem, lamenting that computer analysis meant it was getting harder and harder to achieve any sort of advantage with the white pieces. In order to get back to playing chess he suggested minor modifications to the rules that would make theory, as it currently exists, obsolete."

A quote from Kramnik:

"But, of course, theory is coming on in leaps and bounds. In general, it’s becoming harder and harder for White to get a fight. It’s not simply difficult to get an edge, but to get any kind of fight, for it not to be an empty draw or a totally even position. It’s becoming harder and harder just to get some minimal amount of pressure. And you can already forget about getting some sort of great advantage. So the tendency is clear. That’s been visible at all the tournaments, but particularly here, in a tournament where everyone’s well prepared. The tendency’s very clear."

and again from Kramnik:

"At the board positions that used to be considered += can still be played, but if you’re up against someone who knows what to do, who’s analysed it at home with a computer, then += doesn’t worry anyone very much anymore. That’s the whole problem. It’s important to think up something new, to try and surprise someone and pose problems at the board. That’s probably how chess will develop. Because it’s absolutely obvious chess is a drawn game. "

and yet again:

"It’s obvious that the outcome of almost any opening is going to be equality. The stronger computers get, the more lines are neutralised, the more drawing resources are found for Black, unfortunately."

and Kramnik speaking directly to the topic that Brad Thomson was dealing with,

"All that playing interesting chess and so on, that can be left for Monaco and other tournaments. Here everyone’s got one task, and one task alone. So of course everyone’s playing their best-prepared openings, where they feel as confident as possible. You can’t blame anyone for that, but of course that creates great problems for White. It’s no surprise that White hasn’t won a single game yet in this tournament. It’s hard to win. Everyone’s playing solidly here, because it’s the Candidates Tournament. In other tournaments people play more openly, more… well, they bluff a little, are more original, use something they haven’t prepared very well. Here everyone’s bringing all their weapons to the table. So it’s not easy for White, of course."

and perhaps the most pertinent Kramnik quote of all:

"I want to play chess. That’s what interests me and not preparation. Even if, in general, that’s something I’m good at, I’d be happy to have a complete disarmament. I want to play chess. What can I do if that’s possible less and less often at the top level. I prepare out of necessity, not because I like doing it. I’d be very happy to work less, have a clearer head, sleep a bit, read a book, go for a walk and play chess. It was great the way it used to be. A century ago. But people won’t let me."

It's no surprise that both Jean Hebert and Kevin Pacey are arguing against what Brad Thomson is correctly pointing out. Jean has a vested interest in keeping any other form of chess from rising up and competing because he teaches standard chess, and if a new form of chess comes along, he loses his teaching advantage. Kevin has a vested interest because he studies openings so voraciously and so can easily crush less studious players.

If you are a young player just getting started in chess, or even somewhat older but still developing and with championship aspirations, don't listen to Jean or Kevin. They want to keep you on the path that brings THEM success. They don't care that someday you're going to wake up and realize that you're spending the vast majority of your waking life merely proving what is already known; that standard chess is a drawn game. As Kramnik said, that used to be ok because there was a sense of creativity. Now there is nothing at the highest levels but computer study, at least for the WC cycle.

No evidence, indeed. I think I'll take Kramnik's word over Jean's: at least Kramnik's vested interest is just to be able to play chess again.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Um...it probably won't hurt me much to say that I haven't studied openings systematically for decades. Just the odd variation, now and then these days, and mostly by playing over database games or books to learn the general strategies, maybe a couple of hours a week at best. Perhaps mainly while drinking beers in a friend's basement, when the comic point of the evening is a brief visit to Spraggett's blog. :D

I wonder if all top players feel exactly the way Kramnik does. If so, at least one of them might eventually choose to lobby FIDE to change the standard rules for chess. As I said, I only want to see better proof that now is the time to do so. I agree it's inevitable, someday.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Um...it probably won't hurt me much to say that I haven't studied openings systematically for decades. Just the odd variation, now and then these days, and mostly by playing over database games or books to learn the general strategies, maybe a couple of hours a week at best. Perhaps mainly while drinking beers in a friend's basement, when the comic point of the evening is a brief visit to Spraggett's blog. :D

I wonder if all top players feel exactly the way Kramnik does. If so, at least one of them might eventually choose to lobby FIDE to change the standard rules for chess. As I said, I only want to see better proof that now is the time to do so. I agree it's inevitable, someday.

It doesnt' have to be FIDE changing the standard rules for chess, although perhaps that is the ultimate best move. But it could start with something less dramatic: simply offering chess960 as another branch of chess, with its own World Champion, separate from the standard version.

Then there would be no need to "prove that now is the time". Just offer it now, and let the results guide you. Once chess960 is officially sanctioned and organizers worldwide offer it, you will soon -- within 2 years, I'd say, 3 years max -- see its popularity outstrip standard chess and you'll have all the proof you need.

Apologies for my overexaggeration on your opening studies. I've seen so many threads started by you that deal with openings that I assumed you spend a lot of time on them.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

If I recall correctly, Gary once mentioned that FIDE recognizes correspondence chess, through the world body that governs all correspondence chess. There is also chess for the blind. In principle, yes FIDE could approve chess960 [edit: at least if there's a seperate body that sets itself up to govern it worldwide] as another type of chess they sanction. But is there currently enough demand worldwide [edit: for anyone to want to set up a seperate body governing chess960]?

Regarding my opening studies, they are partly about scrutiny of variations of openings I use normally, whether as preparation vs. specific opponents or not, and partly about overviewing what I would guess the current theoretical status of various openings is for top players. I do the latter simply by reading/skimming through various sources, but largely without subjecting any detailed opening analysis to the closer scrutiny that I would use if I actually decided to use the opening/variation in question.

I often indulge in overviewing the theoretical status of openings way more than I think I should, because I occasionally think about switching my openings, but I normally stick to the ones I've played for a long time in the end anyway.