It is difficult to find other ways of playing- even the best players of the classical period had to work years to invent the Hypermodern School
Is a new School of thought in chess possible to arise?!
Sort:
Nov 26, 2014
0
#23
I'm a mastermind according to the quiz. Says Alekhine was one too.. No wonder he is one of my favorite players.
If a new school of thought is likely, it's more likely to happen if we take up 960chess (or some other arrangement that hasn't been heavily studied out). We could enter a Romantic Era all over again.
I always thought it was classical --> hypermodern --> dynamic --> concrete/computer
watcha wrote:
Arun_1986 wrote:
@ Watcha, just curious what is the A.R.B Chess system, can you elaborate.
Anthony R. Brown has developed a system which he claims is capable of beating the leading chess engines ( like Houdini, Komodo etc. ). He launched several threads here at the chess.com forums in connection with his system. These are some forum search results for a start:
It is really not my job to form judgement on this very much debated system but I have brought it up in this thread because its principles seem to be different from all established schools of thought in chess.
The A.R.B. system may or may not be particularly effective against computers, but it would be no match for an average human player.
Finding a weakness in a computer algorithm is not necessary a viable winning strategy.
I got prodigy represented by magnus carlsen
AIChessHistory wrote:
The A.R.B Chess System - Silicon Proof!
Stockfish at analysis.cpuchess.com, playing white with a 30s search time, recommends a different move at the following positions:
3. Bd3 instead of Nf3
4. Bd3 instead of Nc3
6. Ne2 instead of 0-0
7. d5 instead of Be3
8. d5 instead of Qd2
10. Ne1 instead of a4
12. Qe2 instead of Ne1
13. g3 instead of Qe2
14. h4 instead of Nd3
15. h4 instead of b3
Need I go on? In the first 15 moves, this example against a computer AI deviated from publicly-accessible Stockfish engine 10 times, a 67% MISS ratio!
In many cases, a more passive move has been substituted for the computer's preferred move which allows black to advance his pawns unopposed (in particular white's h4 is ignored twice, ultimately allowing Black a free g5).
In my opinion, the entire ARB system is a fraud easily disproven.
imirak wrote:
AIChessHistory wrote:
The A.R.B Chess System - Silicon Proof!
Stockfish at analysis.cpuchess.com, playing white with a 30s search time, recommends a different move at the following positions:
3. Bd3 instead of Nf3
4. Bd3 instead of Nc3
6. Ne2 instead of 0-0
7. d5 instead of Be3
8. d5 instead of Qd2
10. Ne1 instead of a4
12. Qe2 instead of Ne1
13. g3 instead of Qe2
14. h4 instead of Nd3
15. h4 instead of b3
Need I go on? In the first 15 moves, this example against a computer AI deviated from publicly-accessible Stockfish engine 10 times, a 67% MISS ratio!
In many cases, a more passive move has been substituted for the computer's preferred move which allows black to advance his pawns unopposed (in particular white's h4 is ignored twice, ultimately allowing Black a free g5).
In my opinion, the entire ARB system is a fraud easily disproven.
Except engines do very badly with openings, and in fact the first several "mistakes" are perfectly fine moves. Don't let a computer's reading dictate what you think, you have a brain for a reason, you know.
I think "evolution" is just a marketing term more than anything else. As more knowledge about the game accumulated the game changed. Kasparov wrote a book called "Revolution in the 70s", in my view this is all nonsense and there was no "revolution", just a constant changing.
Probably the game won't change that much from now on though because it's getting beyond the grasp of humans. The human brain only goes so far.
Jan 23, 2015
0
#33
ARBGenius0012 wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
I reported you already.
Little SHIT!
You have a few minutes left on this account at best.
Please stop spamming the forums.
Just report and don't interact with... it.
Jan 23, 2015
0
#35
The great dumbass ARB makes his presence known once again. Back to the gallows with you!
chessBBQ wrote:
The Principles of Carlsenism: A School of Thought
1.Play the man more than the board.Avoid any theoretical discussions.
2.Avoid chaos and stick to intuition based plans in the middlegame.Burn the clock of the opponent.
3.Endgame the opponent to death
Carlsen is not exactly playing the man. He won't make a bad move on purpose to put his opponent ill at ease (that would be suicide against the like of Caruana, Anand, Aronian or Kramnik). I would rather say that he adds to the question of finding the best move a subquestion, which is "which of the best moves I can play will be the most annoying for my opponent ?"
chessBBQ wrote:
The Principles of Carlsenism: A School of Thought
1.Play the man more than the board.Avoid any theoretical discussions.
2.Avoid chaos and stick to intuition based plans in the middlegame.Burn the clock of the opponent.
3.Endgame the opponent to death
Hilarious!
Jan 28, 2015
0
#40
AngeloPardi wrote:
Carlsen is not exactly playing the man. He won't make a bad move on purpose to put his opponent ill at ease (that would be suicide against the like of Caruana, Anand, Aronian or Kramnik). I would rather say that he adds to the question of finding the best move a subquestion, which is "which of the best moves I can play will be the most annoying for my opponent ?"
Very aptly put!
Just wondering if there is any active super GM who actually plays the man in its truest sense.. Like if he is playing say Caruana, he plays this and if Aronian that etc... May be Nakamura would qualify :).
Pretty sure this could be the computer era already