Here is a tactic from a OTB game I played http://www.chess.com/tactics/?id=368957, Here is the game http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/free-game-analyse.
Could You Beat A Grandmaster If...
Sort:
Nov 29, 2012
0
#43
eddysallin wrote:
NO! A thousand times no! It's not tactics u have too be concered about---- "CHECKMATE" will be end to that silliness.Some G.M. said of another great G.M. known for amazing comb.s...... it's not the combo.s as much as placing pieces on squares that allow them to work. Take up Horse-shoes or darts, being close counts.
That's right. The person that can better position the pieces is more likely to have the tactics available.
EricFleet wrote:
The previous two comments are far to short to capture the nuances of your question. The more precise answer is "You gotta be freaking kidding me".
Nice, this made me laugh.
Look at the decisive games in the current tournament in Tashkent, the losing moves are usually in the endgame or the late middle game. Two thirds of the games have been draws with hardly any chances for one side or the other to get an advantage. This is what I meant by most chess positions having no tactical shots, there may be some unclear sacrifices in the notes that Super GM's don't want to risk but otherwise they have things covered.
Nothing happens in those games because they don't blunder! Pick any quiet position they end up with and play it against a computer; the computer will suddenly look like a tactical wizard, unless the position is extremely simplified, simply because the computer will have mistakes to exploit. What you call "hardly any chances" might be that way at super GM level, but it's only because they play such strong chess that this is the case. For two 2000 players, such a position could probably considered one with plenty of chances for both sides to win.
It's true that some openings have less complications than others, but you can basically never get away with not playing excellent chess at super GM level, even if that means prosaic, reasonable, non-blunderous safe moves. There are always tactics beneath the surface, but super GMs often don't allow themselves to have to face such a move because they foresee the possibility.
Elubas wrote:
Super Tactics Dude is a computer, no?
When I think of like a .2, .3 pawn advantage, I think of a pleasant position, but one that can easily turn around if just one tactical nuance is missed. I don't even mean a blunder -- just forgetting that your opponent can make an annoying tactical threat might simply grab the initiative from you, with him getting a .3 advantage instead of you. Unless you have a ridiculous positional advantage, like having eight pieces out versus your opponent's zero, it's still easy for a resourceful opponent to find opportunities in a worse position, especially if their opponent is complacent and not alert. As I said, it doesn't have to be an outright blunder, although that happens plenty of the time too; it can just be a small thing you overlook that makes your "small advantage," that you nursed for 20 moves, disappear immediately.
I suggest anyone who wants to get a feel for this play an engine, starting from a position where you have a pretty large positional advantage, maybe .5-.8 in computer language, but with a lot of pieces on the board. I will argue that most people will not only fail to win, but will lose rather badly -- the tiniest detail you miss will probably allow the computer to make this annoying threat that forces you to lose harmony, and these concessions will pile up in a matter of a few moves. Soon enough the engine will have the initiative, at which point it's already over.
Bravo ! Here is someone who understands the G.M. will grind out the smallest edge into checkmate.
Elubas wrote:
Nothing happens in those games because they don't blunder! Pick any quiet position they end up with and play it against a computer; the computer will suddenly look like a tactical wizard, unless the position is extremely simplified, simply because the computer will have mistakes to exploit. What you call "hardly any chances" might be that way at super GM level, but it's only because they play such strong chess that this is the case. For two 2000 players, such a position could probably considered one with plenty of chances for both sides to win.
It's true that some openings have less complications than others, but you can basically never get away with not playing excellent chess at super GM level, even if that means prosaic, reasonable, non-blunderous safe moves. There are always tactics beneath the surface, but super GMs often don't allow themselves to have to face such a move because they foresee the possibility.
Exactly, which supports my reply to the OP that a tactical genius with no positional understanding will get blown away by a top GM. They don't see everything, but they don't hang pieces in the first dozen moves either which is the only way Super Tactics Dude is going to win..
I would argue, though, that tactical brilliance can be exploited in more subtle ways than taking advantage of blunders. For example, computers often take the initiative not with such strong positional skill, but by making so many tactical threats that the opponent can't place his pieces where he wants, e.g., "I can't play Nd3 because it fails to this tactic; so I have to retreat it to a worse spot instead." These kinds of things can control a player, and engines are great with it.
Indeed, back in the early days of computer chess, your argument descries exactly how it was: Computers could see much farther than humans even in their infancy; but anti-computer chess still allowed grandmasters to embarrass the engines by showing their drawbacks.
However, now, engines have become so unbelievably good with their, mainly, brute force approach, that they will come out on top against pretty much any strategy a human gives them. It doesn't mean they don't have weaknesses, it just means that their strengths outweigh them too vastly. Of course, evaluation systems for engines have probably improved too, but I don't think this is the main reason why engines are unbeatable nowadays, although someone could correct me on that.
Elubas wrote:
Computers could see much farther than humans even in their infancy...
I don't believe that's true. Computers weren't capable of seeing a double-digit # of moves ahead until they'd been around for quite a while.
Fair correction. I assumed computers always had ridiculous speed, but perhaps they didn't. I had always thought their speed was really good, but only recently became really really good.
I agree Andy. What is Elubas thinking? Like some vacuum tubed machine that took all day to process a punch card can see much farther than humans huh? Idiocy!
Elubas wrote:
Fair correction. I assumed computers always had ridiculous speed, but perhaps they didn't. I had always thought their speed was really good, but only recently became really really good.
How old are you? Under 20? I think computers as we know them now have been around since the 1940's, and didn't get fast enough for practical home use till the 1970's and not fast enough to play decent chess till the 90's...
I find it unfortunate that people need to be so negative about others. Me being wrong about that might give some people the wrong information, but it's an easy thing to correct. Harry_Soho, there isn't anything I can do, I guess, about you assuming that I am an idiot based on just one instance or two; all I can do is complain I guess that people are so eager to insult others. Oh well.
Harry_Soho67 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Fair correction. I assumed computers always had ridiculous speed, but perhaps they didn't. I had always thought their speed was really good, but only recently became really really good.
How old are you? Under 20? I think computers as we know them now have been around since the 1940's, and didn't get fast enough for practical home use till the 1970's and not fast enough to play decent chess till the 90's...
This is great information for me actually, but it's too bad that you are mainly only bringing it up to insult me.
Well, Elubas, perhaps you deserve it.
Uh-oh, looks like Looby's gonna mope on us some more...
Harry_Soho67 wrote:
Well, Elubas, perhaps you deserve it.
Well, considering I could have been informed without being insulted, the insult was pretty unnecessary. I'm simply bringing up some possible ideas on computer chess -- clearly some facts are not so accurate, but luckily I am in a situation where what I write doesn't get published in a periodical.
What "ideas" were you bringing up? That you were publishing for all to see as gospel that computers were faster than humans since their invention?
I would say not, since that sentence was a pretty narrow point (for example, it had nothing to do with the paragraph preceding it). I could call you an idiot for not comprehending my post correctly to see how that sentence was a pretty small portion of what I was saying, but I won't judge you based on just one thing.
NO! A thousand times no! It's not tactics u have too be concered about---- "CHECKMATE" will be end to that silliness.Some G.M. said of another great G.M. known for amazing comb.s...... it's not the combo.s as much as placing pieces on squares that allow them to work. Take up Horse-shoes or darts, being close counts.