All Humans Are Bad at Chess!

"All humans are bad at chess." That is the conclusion I came to more than 8 years ago. How did I reach this conclusion? Well, I analyzed game collections of some of the greatest players of all time using the Fritz engine on ChessBase.

The Fritz engine may be very weak by modern computer standards, but it is doubtful that any human can beat it in a set match. The best that can be hoped for is a draw.

Recently, Leela Chess 0 has been trained to be highly effective with piece odds. With queen odds, knight odds, and rook odds.

I think the results Leela has attained against human players have conclusively proved my hypothesis that all humans are atrocious chess players.

For example, Leela beat Grandmaster Raven Sturt 7 - 0 in a blitz match with a rook down in the opening. Raven Sturt has a peak FIDE rating of 2501.

It beat Hikaru Nakamura, 9.5 - 4.5, with Hikaru only winning 2 games with rook odds.

With Knight odds, Hikaru lost 14 - 2. He only achieved 1 victory.

This is unbelievable. It's like Leela is a modern Paul Morphy—giving piece odds and winning easily.

But why is Leela winning? What's taking place? It seems as if Leela has very deep positional understanding. Her opponents often find themselves outmaneuvered.

So, in a sense, the 1st World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz is proven correct! The positional approach to chess is superior! Wilhelm Steinitz would often close positions and outmaneuver his contemporaries and was of the opinion that positional play was superior to the more direct all-out attacking style.

Indeed, the late great International Master and renowned author Jeremy Silman also called attention to this point.

It is often the case that the leela places grandmasters in positions where they must generate a plan, i.e., positions where the necessary course of action is not immediately obvious. It is often the case that they do not know what to do. They find themselves confused and stymied and collapse after a positional grind.

This is also why Magnus Carlsen is superior. He gets into an equal endgame against ordinary grandmasters, strong 2600 grandmasters, and elite grandmasters and then gradually outplays them.

The evaluation shifts from an equal endgame to slightly worse to completely lost for Magnus' opponents.

Another supporter of the positional approach is José Raúl Capablanca, who went 8 years unbeaten. He is also a renowned positional player and one of the greatest endgame chess players who ever lived. Again, players who are great at endgames tend to demonstrate great positional play and understanding.

It's interesting to note that many chess players are superior at finding tactics than Magnus Carlsen or Gukesh. Many chess grandmasters would defeat Magnus in a puzzle battle. Many would defeat Hikaru in a puzzle battle. So if they are tactically superior, then why do they lose equal positions or middle game positions where opening theory is no longer relevant? The key may lie in positional understanding!

From this evidence, the following propositions emerge:

1. All humans are bad at chess.

2. All humans can be beaten even if up a piece from the opening.

3. Positional play is where the true essence of chess lies.

4. No human has truly mastered positional chess or strategic play.

5. Once again the Copernican principle reigns supreme!