Watching Master Chess

So I've been watching the "NH Chess 2010 Rising Stars Tournament". Before that, the "Ulaanbaatar Tournament". The internet is soooo wonderful for allowing us to watch the Grandmasters, IMs, CMs, and NMs play chess, live, without having to be there, or wait until next month or so to review the games in some chess magazine.

But the bloody comments from peeps watching the games online, are usually very annoying. These people just look at what 'Stockfish' evaluates, or their own engines they're running, and comment "Draw", if the engine has the position roughly even. Or, they just start criticizing the player whose position is evaluated dubious, by their engine. I don't know much about chess or birds, but I know when a parrot is watching a game and uses his/her engine to make comments on positions they know nothing about. They just mimmick the engines evaluation as if Hou Yifan and Konera Humpy for instance, are machines. "Looks like a draw", has got to be the most annoying, and empty comment of all. Move 21, and it looks like a draw to 75% of the people who comment! Ridiculous.

But I do have a question in all this. It is probably for those with more experience following chess than myself.

Do you think the chess engine is reducing Master commentary on chess games in progress? I know there must have been a time when chess master's commentary during a master game of chess, made it more exciting with the suprise factor. But with the reliability on the chess engine, the suprise factor, the brilliant combination, the unpredictable, doesn't seem to be there when some 1100 can sit there and say, "Giri just blundered horribly! What was he thinking?"

Yasser Seirawan provides engine-free commentary on many of the top events. It is rare that you can follow his commentary free, but the dollar or two that each game costs is well worth the price. Even he, however, will mention engine analysis that his viewers feed him through comments.

Seirawan is not the only one. There is plenty of master commentary available. But, engines are cheap and usually reliable for sorting through the tactics. Engines are not always correct, however, and as you point out, engine users ofetn misunderstand the difference between even and drawn.

In game 7 of Anand-Kramnik, WCC 2008 the engines could see a clear advantage for Anand, but even I (a B Class player at the time) knew the engines were wrong. See my blog for "live" commentary produced during the game.

I'm still perusing your interesting blog, Ziryab. I do like this strange quote you have from Staunton:

"Chess is certainly the most widely spread scientific amusement even known among civilized nations. The Chess-amateur must travel far indeed in these days to find himself debarred from the indulgence of that pleasant recreation, the knowledge of which will often prove to be a surer passport in foreign lands than all the mysterious symbolism of Freemasonry. Among the most remote regions of the golden East, or the fabled West, in the torrid South, or on the frozen shores of the North, amongst the great military nations and amidst men devoted to commercial enterprise, the Chess-player, who is essentially a cosmopolite, will speedily find a circle of friends through the more than Masonic influence of this ancient and absorbing game."
Howard Staunton, The Chess Tournament (1873)

Very interesting.

Seriously, that quote, and others, went through my mind when I posted this! That's what I would love to see, or hear--Masters of the game totally shocked!

Heh, that would frustrate me too.  You have to work with an engine to get a good evaluation out of it, make it look at interesting tries, go a couple of ply down relevant lines, and give it enough time to chew on the positions.  The only time the evaluation is very accurate seems to be when there is a combination or otherwise many "only" moves.  I respect the moves computers find are very strong, but the evaluations are something I'm learning to trust less and less, especially when no tactics are present.

Yes! I would rather have masters giving their opinion on the position, computerless, than an engine, any day!

It's like the masters who commentate on the game are really trying to tell you about the engine evaluation of the position, instead of adding all that is human to the position. Kind of ugly.

When I watch tournaments, I turn off all commentary. I would rather experience the game for myself. I find I get a lot more out of GM commentary when I have built up my own understanding of the position first.

It's post game analysis... but for the rising start tournament there's some free videos at ICC http://www.chessclub.com/chessfm/

I especially like Joel Benjamin, although others are good too.  They sometimes disagree with engines from a practical standpoint (e.g. grabbing pawns then defending like hell, or overly complicated lines).  Of course there are engine lines given, but it's not very obvious unless it goes into a wild tactical line... and then they'll even say "obviously a computer line" or something.

Other things a master can give that a computer can't, they talk about opening ideas (e.g. Giri played this against Leko a month ago) and transpositions and talk about endgame technique.

Wow! Nakamura just beat van Wely in 17 moves at the NH chess tournament!

I used to watch a lot of relays in FICS, where occasionally someone would give engine "spoilers," and the tradition was that engine analysis wasn't welcome in the main relay room, and there was another relay room where it was allowed and welcome.

It was a very nice tradition, it forced you to use your own brain, discussing variations with other people. You could see how stronger players think differently etc.

Another story I have about this is that Bulgarian commentors that relayed the Topalov vs Anand match at first used engine analysis in their discussions, but then decided to completely rely on their own analysis, without checking things with the computer. They later explained that as "we began to feel that it was the engine that did the whole relay."

Wow! Giri collapsed today against Nielsen, and Nakamura! Bad day for Giri after a wonderful tournament! Gelfand was great! Nakamura and Fabio were very stong. What a great tournament!

The Arctic Securities Stars 2010 is about to start!

M. Carlsen v.s. J. Polgar

V. Anand v.s. J. Hammer

The time limit is 20 0

Why do people use engines while watching games?

I wouldn't use one myself, but, at the site I'm watching the Arctic games, they have a box next to the game being played that shows Stockfish analysis per move. And I have to tape a piece of paper over it because I can't get rid of that box!

Carlsen and Anand won their games. Judith sacrificed a Knight on the 16th move of the Spanish Opening! It was a pretty exciting game. Classic Polgar.

I fully agree with your point : I think that chess comments by titled players without chess engines is much more interesting and instructive !

Much more exciting!