Why Fischer thought computers ruined chess

There's a couple Fischer interviews circling the internet where he mentions chess being dead and that computers are partially to blame. 

Some probably saw him as a sour, disgruntled master who felt he had been chewed up and spit out by the chess world. Others thought he was just going insane. Honestly, both were probably true, but I think he was making a good point. A point that seems to me has been a bit misunderstood.

To me, what Fischer was trying to say, was that all this computer analysis turned chess into nothing more than a game of memorization.

The GM's of the world no longer had to flip though the pages of a book and lean over a chess board to put together their preparation. Computers are doing it all for them now a days. All anyone has to do is just memorize loads of variations spit out by an engine. Whoever can memorize the most lines and to the greatest depth ends up being one of the strongest players in the world.

True, you still need talent and a strong chess foundation, but the need for talent isn't as demanding as it once was.

Years ago, after only a few moves, both players would find themselves in unfamiliar territory where they now had to use their brains to figure out how to win.

But because of all this memorization, these unfamiliar territories have moved further and further away, to a point where the outcome is clear and talent isn't the big deciding factor in how someone wins.

He thought chess had become ridiculous. Two players face each other over a chess board and play this silly little memorization game with each other.

This is why he invented Fischer Random. It solved the big problem he had with what chess had turned into.

With Fischer Random, you can't memorize anything. Every game is unfamiliar territory, and you're forced to use your brain right from the very first move.

That's my take on Fischer's opinion. There seems to be some truth to it, but I think it's a bit too extreme.

Chess games in general are pretty unique. Their too unique to allow the entire game to be relegated into a memory game. But all this memorization has moved unfamiliar positions further away. Talent, while important, is less of a priority.

I think I understand where he was coming from. In his time, him and his contemporaries could not analyze their games so easily, say, after they lost. He was right and wrong. Personally, I think computers or engines kinda spice up the game. I enjoy analyzing my games with engines. I won't stay up late doing it all by myself. It wasn't the modern GMs' fault if engines are accessible today. I'm pretty sure, Fischer memorized GM line, too. The only difference now and then is - you guessed it - we average people can see the computer's evaluation.

I think it’s a far too extreme idea. The recent Aronian-Dominguez game with Aronian on the white pieces was spectacular and interesting — and it was only possible because of how computers have influenced the game. I’m working through some of the games in Chernev’s Most Instructive Games, and computers can easily show that some of these games are flawed (Game 2 — Tal could have been worse if black had just found the same idea, to march his own king down the board on the kingside!). Computers have felt to me like they show more opportunities behind a position than they do ruin the game.

As for the memorization problem, I think it’s overstated. People have been memorizing chess games for decades. The difference now is that people have computer-generated games to memorize if they wish, too.

No doubt that computers have added a lot to chess and increased many peoples interest in the game. I don't think it will ever become the dull, lifeless game that Fischer claimed, but computers have taken a lot of the hard work out of it. To some degree, it's relied on too much because people are often remembering engine suggestions for their games but never really taking the time to understand the full purpose of the move. I think a lot of kids end up doing stuff like that. The memorize a bunch of big, powerful computer lines without understanding any of it, and then take it to the chess club on the weekend.

I think I get your point (and/or Fischer's issues with computers). Computers or engines' invention seem unfair to the old masters. But I don't think a person with a normal or average memory can memorize thousands of opening variations. I'm pretty sure most casual players try to understand the openings. I think Fischer got his view on the computers wrong, but there is some truth to it (memorization). 

I mean there is some truth to Fischer's view on computers and GMs who rely on them: memorization and less talent in the opening. He was wrong when he said he hated it because of computers and memorization, so much so that it had become pre-arranged. Like what I said, it wasn't the modern masters' fault if engines weren't around when Fischer was active. You can bet, Fischer would love to use Stock fish (hypothetically speaking) as he was so driven to become the World Chess Champion then

little known fact fischer was the first person to yell get off my lawn

I think I agree with Fischer. Chess was not what it used to be.

     It's understandable that someone like Fischer, who liked to work the "best" opening lines himself and stick to them, disliked his opponents' ability to have a computer lay out the best moves for them. Some people can remember thousands of chess positions, so these GMs memorize opening lines 20+ moves deep. The answer is to have a varied and changing opening repertoire, avoiding the opponents' favorite variations, and playing obscure lines or a couple of 2nd-best moves to get into unknown territory.

     Ironically, Fischer's solution--960 chess--lets white choose the opening setup, making it possible for the first player to have the opening moves computer analyzed and then memorize them.

it is a common mistaken view that preparation involves finding the best computer moves. this is not what top players do. they find positions that make it difficult on their opponent to find the best move. computers often suggest lines that are best but are easy to respond to. this is not what top players want. to computers the best response can be obvious while it is not for humans. as someone else pointed out caruana's victory over mvl in the poison pawn variation of the najdorf is the perfect example. with computer precision it was a draw but caruana created a very complicated position that he understood and mvl did not and caruana won

     A lot of the greats did the same thing. Just notice how many "Tarrasch Variation" or "Nimzowitsch Variation" or "Alekhine's System" and the like there are. Spassky was known to have played interesting new opening ideas he just read about in a chess magazine on the train to the tournament--and had never analyzed--in important tournaments. Tal would "pull rabbits out of his hat" to create new and complex positions. Lasker often deliberately played moves he knew to be second-best just to unbalance the position and create winning chances for both sides. Capablanca didn't pay too much attention to opening theory, relying on his own judgement to find the best plan in any situation. 

     For us average players, the memorization isn't necessary because our opponents haven't spent hours every day for years with their computers memorizing thousands of variations, and top GMs can find ways round their ultra-booked opponents' preparation.

"Someday computers will make us obsolete" - Bobby Fischer

     That technique is as old as opening theory itself. Finding a new wrinkle in an old system, making an unusual move to complicate the position and be better prepared in that position than the opponent, steering the game toward a kind of position the other player finds difficult, all were done with hours (or years) of home prep long before computers were invented. It really only becomes possible to try those things 20 moves in against a player who is known to follow their pet lines deep into the game. And often it still fails--just ask Frank Marshall about the line he spent ten years studying before springing it on Capablanca.

it has already happened. in many ways the best games played in computer chess championships are more interesting than those played by humans. when a human top player makes a mistake and loses it is usually a relatively simple mistake that an engine can find at low depth. when leela defeats stockfish there is often some deeply profound reason that can sometimes cause us to rethink how we play chess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-vNq61KfLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2FzGQu5eYo

in both of those games stockfish thought it was winning by wide margins until the very end where it did not become apparent what leela was doing until it was too late dozens of moves later

Impossible to argue with really. Everyone basically said 'Well that's it for chess, then,' when Kasperov got beaten by Deep Blue... Especially people who didn't play chess at all. In a sense chess died that day. It certainly doesn't occupy the same space in popular culture as it had. In Fischer's day though, opening theory was only that: theory. Now it's all 100% computer analysed, proven and demonstrable. Inarguable. Of course only a champion or madman would memorise it all, but the comparatively few people who do play chess play better chess now, for sure. The reason why it's easier to learn chess now is also the same reason it will never be as commonly played as before, or respected as it was. Computers.

Personally, I think that Grandmasters using Chess engine preparation is kinda cheating. So I agree with Fischer

my point was not that it negatively affects interest in chess but that humans are inferior to top engines by an order of magnitude. magnus is to stockfish what a low titled player is to magnus.

I would like to point out that memorization is also a talent and you are definitely using your brain when you memorize something, just not the analytical part. You really need both rational thinking and memorization to be a great chess player. Carlson is a prime example, he can memorize many positions 20 or more moves in and remember master games played in the 1950s, but nobody can argue that he is not a great player on the analytical side of it too. That being said I don't bother memorizing much in chess because I just play for fun and it takes the "fun" out of it for me.

fischer's objection to modern chess was that it had become too theory heavy and that computers would make things worse every year. he was not wrong. his solution was to eliminate theory by randomizing the back rank thus making preparation extremely difficult.

what fischer failed to understand is that chess is already far to complicated for ordinary people and what he identified as a problem was only a problem amongst elite players. a game played for hundreds of years is not going to change to fix a problem that is not a problem for practically everybody. normal people have enough trouble wrapping their heads around this game without making it even more complicated. we do not need the changes and we expect top players to play the game that we play not some strange game that only a few people care about 

Is there such a thing as "The perfect chess game"? (Where both sides play perfect moves) If so, does white win, does black win, or is it a draw?