Sterility of Modern Elite Pro Chess
It passed some time since the "Nimzovich's ideas were all rubbish" discussion with GM Yasser Seirawan took place. (In the end, Yaz retreated on all accounts by stating that Nimzovich's ideas — but one, over-protection, "simply garbage" — were "part and parcel of natural good play." What the honorable GM seems to be missing is that all big concepts and ideas (the taxonomy of which Nimzovich gave an important contribution to), yet very simple by their nature, must go to the subconscious underground to effectively govern our judging and acting, fast, intuitively and with no effort, thus having become the parcel of the natural good play)
This time, it is with IM Miodrag Perunovic @theButcher that we went into discussion about the health of modern pro chess. He felt the urge to comment on my remark about the sparkling and spirited performance the modern chess warriors Hikaru Nakamura and Wesley So delivered during their games in the recent FIDE Grand Prix final. When, as FIDE reported after the first game, the two warriors drew at move 30 after a "long theoretical debate." In reality, after a courageous novelty, the "long theoretical debate" lasted for only 3 (three) more moves before the uncompromised fight ended.
The second game had even more of charm and preciousness characterizing the modern elite contribution to the art of chess. A draw at 14 (one may ask how many moves in the two games the two adamant combatants really played effectively by themselves?)
.
What invited Butcher to defend indefensible, the deeply corrosive practice of today's GM elite was my remark concerning the sickly, anemic battle Nakamura and So delighted the chess public like you and me. Here was my comment,
"Another stark sign that modern pro chess with the ridiculously insane opening preparation aided by engines is terminally ill?"
To which Butcher tweeted,
You feel a very big hatred towards modern chess, although, you have to get used to it. Either, learn openings and be competitive or don’t and become a punchbag for weaker guys! Or, simply switch to 960, but I realized you always criticize theoreticians, chess has changed a lot! —IM Miodrag Perunovic
Instead of giving sound and valid arguments about the questionable health of contemporary pro chess, Butcher thinks the problem is with me, not with Nakamura and So's humdrum sterile play, then goes ad hominem and calls me a hater. Frankly, I have to admit it, I really don't see what the sort of games Nakamura and So played are really to be loved for.
Then he patronizes me and tells me that I "have to get used to it," that is to "playing chess of the 21st century" (as he put it in another tweet). Butcher wants all of us who feel that boring and depressing "21st century chess" played by the elite is a caricature of the old game, to undergo the process of normalization of the grotesque. The process that has already taken place in the media and among the chess public.
.
@theButcher is absolutely right in one thing though. The game of pro chess, as it used to be loved, HAS changed a lot! What Butcher is either unable to see, or doesn't want to see is the undeniable fact that the modern chess of the pro elite has been particularly plagued by the cancerous growth of,
1. insanely ever bigger and bigger chess opening theory, and to make things so much uglier,
2. maniacal home opening preparation aided by chess engines.
Do you chess folks really think it is okay that my engine (not my knowledge and understanding) crunches a move — and all possibilities and lines to ensue for a couple of moves thereafter — while leisurely sipping coffee at home, that ambush and stun my opponent who is, quite obviously, unable to react accordingly with the limited clock time running out fast? To me, this is unfair, ridiculous and insane practice of modern pro chess. At least, it brings a marked inequality to the human contest.
The pros should at least announce in their annotations whose move they play and give due credit to their loyal engines, too.
So why do you think Butcher is defending this dull and uninspiring play of Naka and So?
And why the overwhelming majority of us have become accomplices to blindly accepting this kind of sterile and ritualistic games played by the modern pro "warriors?"
.
.
