Opening Creation - Novelties + Analysis

Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do. Sense computers are bad when they have nothing to calculate, they are bad at strategy.

That argument is nullified once you start using logic.

If a computer can play against the best, and defeat players like Kramnik with no trouble, then srategy is useless.

X3D Fritz vs. Kasparov = Draw. Fritz 10 vs. Kramnik = Fritz Wins.

Obviously your argument just doesn't stand up to the facts.

Computers know all the tactics. This is obvious if you have an engine.

In most cases they can spot chess brilliances in seconds.

The "logic" you are applying is total nonsense and just proves you are rather clueless regarding what you're talking about. x beats y does not necessarily mean that x is better in every aspect of the game, just that he is better overall. Computers beat humans because they are vastly superior at tactics, and one tactical mistake is enough to spoil a strategically perfect game, but good human players are much better in other fields of the game. 

There is a simple dimostration of this fact: High-level correspondence is played by computer-assisted human players. Such a human-machine chimera is much stronger than an engine alone. You just have to try: create an account on a chess server which allow computers, "play" by always choosing houdini's first recommended move in every game, and watch while you get beaten again and again. This will teach you something about the value of chess strategy.

You seem to be slow. you might want to see a doctor.

Great strategy is unavoidable with accurate play.

Arguing otherwise is just precatory thinking.

These people are entirely right. I suggest checking out the ICCF, as it shows that only humans have expert strategy. Also, great strategy is not so "unavoidable" through computers. Just because you can beat a 2800+ player, does not mean you make perfect moves. If someone developed a computer that, in addition to calculating perfectly, could demonstrate expert strategy, then it would be far superior to all of the great programs available today.

Do you guys have evidence, or are you pulling facts out of your ass?

Computers today are very much capable of strategy. It's not exactly impossible or even difficult to replicate.

The fact still remains that a strong computer can defeat every player alive with no such called strategy.

This basically implies that strategy is a useless human concept that does not relate to chess.

It's safe to say that the best players are the best because of their calculating abilities. There are no Super-GM's who "feel" a move.

The best players seem to have the uncany ability to see 15-20 moves ahead.

Can you honestly say that Kasparov could be World Champion mostly on strategy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WRYxD6zpzk

Why don't you watch some of the best players in the world Yereslov and tell he at what points they are calculating 20 moves ahead.

Apart from anything else, it's utterly impossible for a human to do in most positions.

Kasparov said it himself in interviews.

Ir's not that impossible.

You seem clueless yourself.

What did he say? I feel whatever it was you don't really get it.

Seriously, watch the video. They make a clear plan based on strategy and attacking opponents weaknesses/pressing their advantages. Quite often they will say, 'I'll play it here because it must be the right move', without knowing what the opponent will play. They recognise the important features of the position, not predict the next 20 moves.

Nobody can calculate 20 moves ahead for every good reply in non forced lines in a normal middlegame position.

He's done well to get to IM then. Or is it perhaps you who is clueless.

@Yereslov: There is no point to your argument, as most moves are based on strategy, not calculation. While strong calculation is a good skill to have in tactical positions, strategy is much better in others. Just looking at the "best" line 20 moves ahead is pointless when there are no tactics in the position. Also, why are you arguing with an IM; do you think you are better than he?

Strategy is kind of useless without the ability to at least calculate ahead a few moves.

15 moves of calculation isn't that much to a GM.

Players like Petrosian did it with ease. Please don't try to dictate what players well above your intellect can do.

You aren't even on the same planet.

Asked how many moves ahead he can think, Kasparov replied that it depended on the positions of the pieces. "Normally, I would calculate three to five moves," he said. "You don't need more.... But I can go much deeper if it is required." For example, in a position involving forced moves, it's possible to look ahead as many as 12 or 14 moves, he noted.

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland1.html

Can you all shut up now? I'd hate to make you seem more retarded than you actually are.

Interesting that you seem to ignore whichever questions you don't want to answer. Of course, I 100% agree that you can't get far in chess without some level of calculative skills. However, the evaluation of the end position is that of strategy, not calculation.

Strategy involves calculation. Chess is a moving game.

You have to at least know that some strategy will lead to an advantage. 

Sometimes this involves thinking a few moves ahead.

It's unavoidable.

Wow, I think that says it all. Yereslov, did you notice how he just said "Normally, I would calculate three to five moves...you don't need more"? I think that shows that in most cases, 20-ply calculation is not of utmost importance. Instead, GMs rely on the strategy behind the position to dictate their moves.

Yes, calculation is unavoidable in 99% of cases. Otherwise, how would you know if there was a tactic in the position? However, once you calculate the three to five moves required, then strategy is necessary. Computers can calculate all they want, but their moves are based on conditional evaluation, rather than pure strategy.

He supported what I said, not what you said. If you can't see that you're either stupid, trolling, or more likely, both.