You are making it too complicated. Do Ian, Giri, Magnus, Pragg, and other top players go to you for help? They take the computer to bed with them. That is why they do not need your guidance.
Here's some food for thought:
The International Correspondence Chess Federation allows engine use (an accident of history, too late to remedy now). Correspondence play here forbids engine use, but it's normal in the ICCF.
So top Correspondence masters use engines for their play. But they don't just play the top engine moves all the time: if they did, they would lose. They add their own judgment and choose moves which are not necessarily the best but still tactically sound and tailored to make it difficult for their opponent's chess engines to find the right moves.
It's a weird exercise in my opinion, and I don't pretend to understand exactly what top Correspondence players are doing. But doesn't it suggest to you @Clearchesser that there is more to human chess play than merely what the engine says?
The International Correspondence Chess Federation allows engine use (an accident of history, too late to remedy now). Correspondence play here forbids engine use, but it's normal in the ICCF.
So top Correspondence masters use engines for their play. But they don't just play the top engine moves all the time: if they did, they would lose. They add their own judgment and choose moves which are not necessarily the best but still tactically sound and tailored to make it difficult for their opponent's chess engines to find the right moves.
It's a weird exercise in my opinion, and I don't pretend to understand exactly what top Correspondence players are doing. But doesn't it suggest to you @Clearchesser that there is more to human chess play than merely what the engine says?
I suppose you are right? The top players would still be good without it though it kinda defeats the purpose of playing knowing you can rarely do as well. I will still make attempts at this solved game. If you do not believe me, I guess I will have to provide proof again.
@Clearchesser said in #13:
> I suppose you are right? The top players would still be good without it though it kinda defeats the purpose of playing knowing you can rarely do as well. I will still make attempts at this solved game. If you do not believe me, I guess I will have to provide proof again.
I'll tell you a story
I was in a mental health unit , I had been sectioned, I was having many delusions. I was laying in bed late at night and some yobs were on the way home from the pub and for a laugh and because they were driving past the local loony bin, they shouted out 'You're mad' this completely brought me to my senses and stopped my delusions that night.
What I'm saying is that you are completely fixated on this idea chess is solved.
You only have to look at the candidates this last week or so, the best players in the world and many great decisive games to know it's not ,for humans anyway.
I would suggest you give up on this idea! as chess can send you mad, (Morphy and Fischer to name two) (and many others probably) I suggest you change course and forget this pathway you're on and , if you're going to continue to play, enjoy playing chess with other humans . It's a very dangerous tunnel you're going down and not healthy for you , next you'll be saying , did they let me win? and you could be lost forever. Snap out of it and enjoy it at face value , it's a relaxing pastime to enjoy with a friend after Sunday lunch with a glass of something by the fireside , nothing more , stop going down the bottomless pit and climb back up , for your own sake and mental health ,peace up ,SimonBirch xxx
> I suppose you are right? The top players would still be good without it though it kinda defeats the purpose of playing knowing you can rarely do as well. I will still make attempts at this solved game. If you do not believe me, I guess I will have to provide proof again.
I'll tell you a story
I was in a mental health unit , I had been sectioned, I was having many delusions. I was laying in bed late at night and some yobs were on the way home from the pub and for a laugh and because they were driving past the local loony bin, they shouted out 'You're mad' this completely brought me to my senses and stopped my delusions that night.
What I'm saying is that you are completely fixated on this idea chess is solved.
You only have to look at the candidates this last week or so, the best players in the world and many great decisive games to know it's not ,for humans anyway.
I would suggest you give up on this idea! as chess can send you mad, (Morphy and Fischer to name two) (and many others probably) I suggest you change course and forget this pathway you're on and , if you're going to continue to play, enjoy playing chess with other humans . It's a very dangerous tunnel you're going down and not healthy for you , next you'll be saying , did they let me win? and you could be lost forever. Snap out of it and enjoy it at face value , it's a relaxing pastime to enjoy with a friend after Sunday lunch with a glass of something by the fireside , nothing more , stop going down the bottomless pit and climb back up , for your own sake and mental health ,peace up ,SimonBirch xxx
@Clearchesser said in #13:
> I suppose you are right? The top players would still be good without it though it kinda defeats the purpose of playing knowing you can rarely do as well. I will still make attempts at this solved game. If you do not believe me, I guess I will have to provide proof again.
Your premise is that chess is a solved game.
To clarify, a solved game is a game whose outcome (win, lose or draw) can be correctly predicted, assuming that both players play perfectly.
For chess to be a solved game, White must be able to always force a victory or a draw. However, as of today, even the best chess engines are not up to the task. Stockfish 16, the best chess engine still sometimes loses as white.
E.g. tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=66&season=25
Hence, chess is not a solved game, at least not yet.
However, I understand your point of view. Chess players at the highest level would indeed refer to chess engines to identify the best move and then try to understand why that particular move is the best one. They do not require human support for this specific purpose. This is mainly for two reasons:
1/ The highest-rated chess engine is Stockfish 16 rated at 3634 elo. The highest-rated human player is Magnus Carlsen rated at 2830 elo. Hence, the engine will provide a better answer for the best move than Magnus Carlsen, on average.
2/ You can use the chess engine anywhere and anytime to help you find the best move. But, you can't carry a Magnus Carlsen in your pocket. And if you call him too many times to help you, he will get annoyed at one point and that's perfectly normal as Magnus is also a human being. A chess engine is always ready to help you whenever and wherever you need it, without a single complaint.
From the above point, I am sure you can understand why top players use chess engines.
Also, even if I can never beat Usain Bolt in a 100m run, that doesn't stop me from running. Running is not only about winning a race. It's also about exercising your body, it serves as a breather when I have too many things on my mind etc...
The same goes for chess. It's not about being able to beat Magnus Carlsen or the best chess engine. It's about spending time with my friends discussing a game, the dopamine rush from finding a crushing tactic during a tense game, saving a game from a lost position, having a community of chess players to seek support if you need any help etc. There is so much more to chess than just being at the top.
I hope this helps you and good luck with your book.
> I suppose you are right? The top players would still be good without it though it kinda defeats the purpose of playing knowing you can rarely do as well. I will still make attempts at this solved game. If you do not believe me, I guess I will have to provide proof again.
Your premise is that chess is a solved game.
To clarify, a solved game is a game whose outcome (win, lose or draw) can be correctly predicted, assuming that both players play perfectly.
For chess to be a solved game, White must be able to always force a victory or a draw. However, as of today, even the best chess engines are not up to the task. Stockfish 16, the best chess engine still sometimes loses as white.
E.g. tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=66&season=25
Hence, chess is not a solved game, at least not yet.
However, I understand your point of view. Chess players at the highest level would indeed refer to chess engines to identify the best move and then try to understand why that particular move is the best one. They do not require human support for this specific purpose. This is mainly for two reasons:
1/ The highest-rated chess engine is Stockfish 16 rated at 3634 elo. The highest-rated human player is Magnus Carlsen rated at 2830 elo. Hence, the engine will provide a better answer for the best move than Magnus Carlsen, on average.
2/ You can use the chess engine anywhere and anytime to help you find the best move. But, you can't carry a Magnus Carlsen in your pocket. And if you call him too many times to help you, he will get annoyed at one point and that's perfectly normal as Magnus is also a human being. A chess engine is always ready to help you whenever and wherever you need it, without a single complaint.
From the above point, I am sure you can understand why top players use chess engines.
Also, even if I can never beat Usain Bolt in a 100m run, that doesn't stop me from running. Running is not only about winning a race. It's also about exercising your body, it serves as a breather when I have too many things on my mind etc...
The same goes for chess. It's not about being able to beat Magnus Carlsen or the best chess engine. It's about spending time with my friends discussing a game, the dopamine rush from finding a crushing tactic during a tense game, saving a game from a lost position, having a community of chess players to seek support if you need any help etc. There is so much more to chess than just being at the top.
I hope this helps you and good luck with your book.
I can carry a Magnus Carlsen in my pocket if I invent the right machine. Honey, I shrunk the Kids!
@vsdgniuz said in #15:
> For chess to be a solved game, White must be able to always force a victory or a draw.
I've seen this statement many times but never with at least a hint of a proof. Can you actually prove that the initial position cannot be winning for black or you just assume it must be the case because "everybody knows" or because "it's clear because white starts so that they have an advantage"?
> For chess to be a solved game, White must be able to always force a victory or a draw.
I've seen this statement many times but never with at least a hint of a proof. Can you actually prove that the initial position cannot be winning for black or you just assume it must be the case because "everybody knows" or because "it's clear because white starts so that they have an advantage"?
@mkubecek said in #17:
> I've seen this statement many times but never with at least a hint of a proof. Can you actually prove that the initial position cannot be winning for black or you just assume it must be the case because "everybody knows" or because "it's clear because white starts so that they have an advantage"?
Indeed, my definition is slightly incomplete. A complete definition would be: For chess to be a solved game, a player either white or black must be able to always force a victory or a draw.
So, why did I not mention Black initially? It is just because of statistics.
Based on statistical results of chess games between top chess engines on tcec-chess.com/, the statistics for win heavily favor white over black.
A few examples: (see the Event Stats)
Season 25 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=25) - White wins: 46, Black wins: 4, Draw: 50
Season 24 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=24) - White wins: 45, Black wins: 1, Draw: 78
Season 23 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=23) - White wins: 35, Black wins: 2, Draw: 63
Season 22 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=22) - White wins: 37, Black wins: 0, Draw: 63
Season 21 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=21) - White wins: 25, Black wins: 1, Draw: 74
So, for the last five years, in the matches between the top 2 chess engines playing as both white and black pieces, the number of White wins is significantly more than Black wins. So, we can conclude that White has some form of advantage over Black. Since the board setup is fixed for both White and Black, this advantage must come from the fact that white gets to move first.
Also, Stockfish 16, the best chess engine today, gives a very small advantage to White at the beginning of the game i.e. it's not 0.0 at the beginning of the game. So, White pieces having a first-move advantage does make sense.
To prove that chess is not a solved game, I needed to prove that neither white nor black can force win or draw.
Since, white wins significantly more than black, if I can just prove that white can not force wins or draws i.e. white loses sometimes even when played by the best chess engine, it is sufficient to conclude that chess is not a solved game. Hence, I chose to focus only on white pieces.
> I've seen this statement many times but never with at least a hint of a proof. Can you actually prove that the initial position cannot be winning for black or you just assume it must be the case because "everybody knows" or because "it's clear because white starts so that they have an advantage"?
Indeed, my definition is slightly incomplete. A complete definition would be: For chess to be a solved game, a player either white or black must be able to always force a victory or a draw.
So, why did I not mention Black initially? It is just because of statistics.
Based on statistical results of chess games between top chess engines on tcec-chess.com/, the statistics for win heavily favor white over black.
A few examples: (see the Event Stats)
Season 25 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=25) - White wins: 46, Black wins: 4, Draw: 50
Season 24 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=24) - White wins: 45, Black wins: 1, Draw: 78
Season 23 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=23) - White wins: 35, Black wins: 2, Draw: 63
Season 22 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=22) - White wins: 37, Black wins: 0, Draw: 63
Season 21 (tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=21) - White wins: 25, Black wins: 1, Draw: 74
So, for the last five years, in the matches between the top 2 chess engines playing as both white and black pieces, the number of White wins is significantly more than Black wins. So, we can conclude that White has some form of advantage over Black. Since the board setup is fixed for both White and Black, this advantage must come from the fact that white gets to move first.
Also, Stockfish 16, the best chess engine today, gives a very small advantage to White at the beginning of the game i.e. it's not 0.0 at the beginning of the game. So, White pieces having a first-move advantage does make sense.
To prove that chess is not a solved game, I needed to prove that neither white nor black can force win or draw.
Since, white wins significantly more than black, if I can just prove that white can not force wins or draws i.e. white loses sometimes even when played by the best chess engine, it is sufficient to conclude that chess is not a solved game. Hence, I chose to focus only on white pieces.
I confer ... those are just tools.
Chess is not dead...
To me Magnus is not so much the Goat at Chess (since he retired from classical chess , I'm going to talk about him in the past tense) what he did..... he outwitted his opponent's before the 1st move.
While his opponent's burned the midnight oil with Stockfish 16.1 and went all in on prepping for what ever main line Magnus was currently using... i.e. going 16 moves deep on the 1st and 2nd best lines .... Carlsen played a sub-optimum line, one that led to equality... designed to pull his opponent out of any prep they did... then outplayed them in that equal position. OR.. he played a opening (or defense) that was totally out of fashion... (again the strategy was to the same thing... take any computer prep off the board)
That is what he did... and still doing.
GM Ipotov wrote a 2 volume set "The Unconventional Approach to Modern Chess" shows you what's been going on at the top.
Ding played the London to win the title... A perfect example.
Computers are a tool... In OTB it can be double edge sword... "As Carlsen has shown."
The other benefit of computers is that they are finding new ideas or "work around's" to known problems in openings that fell of of fashion.
Chess is not dead...
To me Magnus is not so much the Goat at Chess (since he retired from classical chess , I'm going to talk about him in the past tense) what he did..... he outwitted his opponent's before the 1st move.
While his opponent's burned the midnight oil with Stockfish 16.1 and went all in on prepping for what ever main line Magnus was currently using... i.e. going 16 moves deep on the 1st and 2nd best lines .... Carlsen played a sub-optimum line, one that led to equality... designed to pull his opponent out of any prep they did... then outplayed them in that equal position. OR.. he played a opening (or defense) that was totally out of fashion... (again the strategy was to the same thing... take any computer prep off the board)
That is what he did... and still doing.
GM Ipotov wrote a 2 volume set "The Unconventional Approach to Modern Chess" shows you what's been going on at the top.
Ding played the London to win the title... A perfect example.
Computers are a tool... In OTB it can be double edge sword... "As Carlsen has shown."
The other benefit of computers is that they are finding new ideas or "work around's" to known problems in openings that fell of of fashion.
@Clearchesser with your logic you shouldn’t play any video game that has a tas. I think this is more of a your either not having fun while playing or you’ve plateaued and can’t get any better so you just make the excuse of computers is how they got good.