Our way of playing chess needs to change.

Hello all,

As anyone can see by following recent chess, chess players of all kinds have become too dependent upon these things called "chess engines." Anytime a player brings up a point, someone who attempts to refute him will always cite the "engine" as their source. This needs to stop. If we are at the point where we can no longer come up with our own reasons for playing the moves we play, and all we can do is follow the moves denoted by some non-sentient object, then we are a sad people indeed. For this reason, I have taken to inventing openings, but the negative response to the openings which I create is immense– and, as you might expect, the criticism of my openings always roots back to what the omnipresent "engine" says. What are your thoughts upon this, and how can we change these engine-following sheep? (please do not use the engine to come up with your comments)

someone must respond to this! surely i am not alone in my thoughts

My only issue with chess engines is those that take everything they spew out as the gospel truth.  I want to slap some kids at tournaments some times.  They sit hunched over a laptop talking baout how they were "winning" because the chess engine said they were +.4

But ask them what that means, and all you get is a blank stare.  

Capablanca had a great quote.  Now just replace "books" with "engines"

Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight

You think it is bad now wait till chess is solved.  Right now engines are just better than grandmasters, they still don't play perfect chess.    Ultimately chess is still able to enjoy this window of an unsolved game.   Think about Othello/Reversi which is solved.  There are still Othello tournaments (http://usothello.org/)  but there is no debate anymore about whether a move is the best move a good move a bad move.  It is just a question fact now.  I suspect you'll look back on this window of time where there could even be debate in a true sense longingly when you no longer can have these debates. 

You could always switch to Go.  They seem to be where chess was in the early 1990s Go engines are just catching up with the best human players.  Partial information games like bridge are still wide open.  The humans still dominate the game.   So while the game is dying out.... there is a rich field if you want to discover a place where advice is still mostly based on human experts not computer analysis.

I enjoy seeing my creative "blunders" that provided a won game. I go back and review the analysis and see my opponent had a refutation that they didn't see either, validating the creative "blunder" for that instant.

Exactly. When human beings hand over the responsibility of thinking to gadgets, they throw away their very humanity.

I have left pieces undefended on accident, but because the tactical motif of my move was enough for my opponent to either not see the "hung" piece or didn't trust taking it as a sacrifice. The reality, just hung a piece but got away with it. That's what's missing in regards to engine refutations, or arguing with an engine. You can't fully quantify a position with an engine because it lacks one serious component to playing chess, Emotion.

I dont even think this whole "Will chess be solved" question that is constantly asked really matters.  Lets say chess gets solved tomorrow.  Its still up to US to play the best moves we can.

nuts

 i am glad that there are others who think like me. I understand that there might be cases where it is good to use the computers, but using them to justify that you are better than someone else or overrelying on them is bad - for example, intentionally creating complications is a viable strategy if it works, it does not matter if your advantage went down temporarily according to the computer

I am convinced i have seen it all when it comes to chess engines.  

I know a USCF 1300 player that runs his games through fritz for DAYS, and sets it at a threshold of .10 of a pawn, so he gets all these alternate lines of analysis.  

Another guy uses engines for nothing but openings, without an opening book. Doesnt question anything the engine says.  He also has no idea why he plays the moves he does, and naturally loses.  

There is something about technology, and people that do not take the time to learn how to use it correctly.  

I do my own analysis first.  Run the game through an engine on Blunder Check ONLY.  

But to each there own i guess.

Wait.  The Best Computer Bridge Programs Can't Beat the Best Human Bridge Players?  Is that right?

Smart phones have not made my students (at college) any smarter -- just the opposite.  They're increasingly unable to think on their feet when presented with even a simple question, and instead reflexively want to "google it".  They're increasingly afraid to answers question in class, in front of their peers, but instead prefer to hide anonymously behind an online app.  It's not surprising that this attitude has infected chess commentary.

And that is the problem for many.  It hasnt made them smarter, it just makes them sound smarter, and has definitely made many lazier.

+1.09

I study computer chess style and have no idea what you are talking about. Its not just chess that is affected, but all of society is halloween every day. Kids put on a necklace of puka puka shells and call themselves surfers...and whats usually cited is corporate sponsored humans..on the internet....not some AI output. Back in the day the openings that Kasparov played were 'superior' to Karpovs...unless you were in some cult like Silman's....same stuff.

If someone spends any length of time with computer chess, they will easily see that computer chess is a grey world. Rather than say 'play d4 and beat your opponent' like the books most people adhered to, its not a black and white world. It causes you to think and perceive WAY more than any human instruction. It is not about one particular move, but about a different set of priorities and perception.

What is adaptable to humans will become part of the human perception....but the rest will remain in computers beating the snot out of humans.

These people who lament computer chess are just as ignorant. To say 'this is the way because it follows opening principles' is the same claiming superiority with +.3 from some engine. The engine gives you the results and you can decide yourself. I dont see anyone else giving anything but vague information why its best to learn this way or that way. Why these lamenters fall for believing that computers are a black and white Scholars Mate is beyond me....when its clearly a song and dance routine or part of trash talking amongst youth.

Our way of interacting with one another needs to change.  We need to unite as a species and do what is best for our entire species as if we were one living organism, because we kinda are...

I don't think people should, "cite engine moves", but the computer does have its place.

True, but the annonymity of the internet makes some act like they wouldnt in person.  The internet is electronic courage, just like alcohol is liquid courage.

Alpha-go recently won convincingly against the strongest human. But the fact that the computers are stronger doesn't mean chess (or go) is solved, and is no reason to let it spoil your enjoyment of the game.