Short answer no, long answer nooooooo.
Chess Engines
Sort:
I read openings go in and out of fashion. Also that some openings thought to be solid or flawed turning out differently
ps. I don't know if its still the case with engines though
melvinbluestone wrote:
Wouter_Remmerswaal wrote:
Short answer no, long answer nooooooo.
You may be right, but it's difficult to believe. You mean these programs that perform at ratings of 3300+ haven't uncovered any flaws in openings devised by human's, who perform at much lower levels? I mean, enough flaws to essentially disprove the validity of the opening. If that's the case, what's the point of the ratings for chess engines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greengrocer's_apostrophe
And to answer the OP, yes.
It's actually the other way around -- a variety of lines that used to be considered dubious are now considered playable because the computer found new resources
It's of course hard to give exact examples, because nobody knows if novelty X was invented by computer or by the player, or a combination of both. But the range of openings considered playable nowadays is wider than ever in history.
Chess is very likely to be a draw, and it seems black doesn't really have a narrow path in the opening either. Which is a good thing!
melvinbluestone wrote:
Wouter_Remmerswaal wrote:
Short answer no, long answer nooooooo.
You may be right, but it's difficult to believe. You mean these programs that perform at ratings of 3300+ haven't uncovered any flaws in openings devised by human's, who perform at much lower levels? I mean, enough flaws to essentially disprove the validity of the opening. If that's the case, what's the point of the ratings for chess engines?
Just that computers have 3300 doesn't mean they find better moves than every human whatever the position. Most of their advantage over top GMs is simply that they don't make tactical mistakes.
There are probably lines that aren't played anymore at top level because of some novelty found by a computer, but I can't think of any big popular lines. It's also very unlikely: popular lines has been worked on and played by many many strong players.
The idea of an opening like the Sicilian, which has been worked on for millions of man hours and appears to end up equal in like a zillion different variations can possibly be refuted by a simple computer sounds just impossible to me.
Given that "chess openings" basically cover the first 20 move pairs.
And "chessnuts" have already had 500 years to "explore and perfect" these first 20 moves. For example, in the Ruy Lopez.
Why in the world would you think that chess engines should somehow "solve or refute" this first 20 move framework?
Engines typically "work best" with the millions of possible tactical positions that arise AFTER the opening is completed.
Ditto with the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases, that have been "solved" for up to 6 pieces, and covering all possible starting positions.
Have chess engines/computers exposed/refuted openings that were previously thought to be solid? If so, which are some good examples?