This made me thinking a lot in past days, where is chess going at this rate? There is no more real chess skills and no good iold-fashioned learning. Today people use computers all the time, immediately after they finish games, to check their errors, they learn openings from them and not even think about it.
When you analyze your game with engine, you do not learn anything, you don`t see your own errors, so you can make to many progress. At its very beginnings chess was very agressive, sharp and heading for mate, what it is really about. Today games are so passive, borring and stupid, all finishing in endgame, waiting for opponents error.
This isn`t chess, it is becoming borring and dull, which we do not want! And all that because of engines and players being afraid to play sharp games. I would like if that is changed, so we can enjoy in chess in 30-50 years, beacuse if we continue like this it will be sloved, and we won`t be able to enjoy it. So my aim is to try to avoid chess engines, at all levels, to spend more time with books, and trying to find your own openings, because thats how GMs in last century learned, that is why they are legends.
Think about this and please give your opinion. Thank you.
i sort of feel the same way, ivan. i even wrote an article about it a couple of years ago:
I agree. After all, we are just spoiling our minds with technology, while at the same time straining it to accumulate chess knowledge.
We are trying to not use our brains, but at the same time, trying to also (get what I mean?).
Sadly, I doubt that they are.
We are not kidding you, it is sad true.
Why not play 960?
Top players complicate games now more than ever, and it's due to computer chess not in spite of it. Draws are a function of more evenly matched opponents pushing the limits of a game that is drawn by its nature. Put yourself up vs a GM and you'll see fireworks more spectacular than anything Morphy or Anderssen cooked up.
Today's top players also work harder at chess than their predecessors, as these additional tools (computers) are being used by their opponents as well. No top player can afford to stop thinking critically about what the computer is telling them, lines are discarded as well as adopted.
Also, there's no credence to your general theme of "different is worse, the old ways are better" Drawn games are the natural outcome of chess. The romantic style of chess with its speculative sacrifices and non-existent defensive techniques is completely artificial.
And finally, it's very nearly impossible for chess to be solved in 30-50 years.
wafflemaster-"And finally, it's very nearly impossible for chess to be solved in 30-50 years."
oh good I won't be around to see that then.
Expect the unexpected.
oh goody goody Norman Bates is coming home.
Modern Chess games are boring and stupid? I don't see it.
However, the OP's speculations about negative impact of computers on the game of Chess are not uncommon or bizarre. A lot of people hate the memorized openings made possible by computer drills and databases, and others hate knowing that they are devoting a lot of time to something that their PC is much better at. For those people, Chess960, Go, or Arimaa might be the future.
My guess though, is that 100 years from now, there will be a lot of people playing some very, very, fancy real time computer games, and a few people who play Chess, which will still be the dominant, pure thinking, game in the English speaking world, and there will be a very, very small number playing alternatives to Chess. In other words, the more things change, the more they will stay the same.
Given the OP's rather low Online Chess rating, a fair conjecture is that he's similar to @RoseQueen1985. Now all he needs to do is pick fights with NM Reb to complete the picture.
Rated 2000 at Blitz, and 1400 Online? Only 7 games online, however.
And all this chess prowess by the age of 15? Seems a bit weird.
Yes, there are aspects of computers and chess that have been undesireable. Starting with the loss to a computer by the world champ. Demoralizing.
But...look at all the people who play daily with people from all over the world, who could not do so otherwise. And, the learning tools...I can do 60 tactical puzzles within an hour. "Back in the day", that was not possible.
My opinion is your opinion is not shared by everyone else, so get over it.
OP, you need to visit a chess club full of young people, like at a university. Reaching the endgame is practically unheard of at my club!
iold? hmm, sounds like apple has a new chess app.
You want to progress by going backwards. Interesting.
As for being solved, chess can't be solved. Too many possibilities.
For most people who don't have a coach, (mostly everyone), a chess engine is the best way to ask questions on why happens when you make a particular move. This is a new tool that is being used to make players better. If it made them worst, they wouldn't use it.
Fact of the matter is, the nature of the game has always been to play your best and wait for your opponent to slip up and then keep the pressure on till you win. Very dynamic play is risky and can be exploited by your opponent. Like fighting, when you throw a punch and they are expecting it, then they can "play passive" and move out of the way and grab your arm and use your own momentum against you. Chess is pretty similar.
A lot of those older games would not have made it today because they have been studied and the weakness in their approach is well known by the best players today.
Players analysis there games with a chess engine to learn from their mistakes and improve. Else why would they bother.
I see you play a lot of 1 minute long games. So of course you never see the endgame, which can be interesting in itself. It hard to improve from playing one minute long games.
Put simply if being aggressive leads to losing, then why would anyone want to play that way?
I think you are wrong here ;), Chess can be solved, and if we continue like this it will be solved, just like checkers was. Search webo for additional info.
It is good to learn with engines, but they are dangerous, like all computers are. I am afraid they will take over chess and nothing will be let for us to discover, that is my main aim here. Point of chess is to discover new possibilities, to think, no to memorize as many as you can. I wish all computers are gone :D, that would make chess superior than ever.
Checkers had a smaller number of possible games. The endgame database has 39 trillion positions and can be stored easily. Chess has more possible games then the number of atoms in the universe. Ignoring the physical limitations of computing speed needed, there simply aren't enough atoms available on Earth to store the endgame database.
There's no one saying that chess can be solved. Only a few people that are saying it might if some unknown future technology comes along that breaks all known laws of physics. Basically wishful thinking that anything is possible, even though anything is clearly not possible.
You wish all computers are gone? You're using one now.
And what about humans. Given enough time, couldn't they solve all possible games?
I see no problems with chess getting solved. You just move on to a more complex game. Kids are able to solve tic-tac-toe and get bored with it. Since people are limited in how strong they can think, it's irrelevant if a computer has solved the game or not, At long as you're playing against another human. You already know there are a limited number of games and not unlimitedly complex, so what's the difference if it gets solved or not. Just don't play against a computer.
Also all games of chess should end in a draw at any rating level. Assuming your opponent is just as good as you, (or you could just play against yourself and see this), you should be able to counter every plan they can think of, so that leads in a drawn game every time. It's only when a mistake is made by the other player that one can win with certainty. The lower you rating is, the more obvious this mistake needs to be.