Will AlphaZero show that this generation in top level chess was a waste?

I have often wondered where are the immortal games of the previous generation. Where is Magnus Carlsen's immortal game? It simply doesn't exist. I feel that the current generation doesn't play immortal games anymore. They instead stick to the 'computer' mode of playing, just slowly improving your position and eventually making that one extra pawn count and grind out a result.

I will be the first one to admit that I am oversimplifying and the current generation has played some great and exciting games as well. However for the most part I think everyone will agree that the era of romantic chess was done and dusted.

The kind of chess that masters of the past played, just always looking to go to any extent to get an advantage and not being happy with equality was, one felt, done with in the history books.

Also I don't want to sound too delusional in criticising the games of the best chess players in the world. I am fully aware of my very limited chess prowess as I write this. However, just as one doesn't need to be a great singer to know a great song from one that isn't, similarly one needn't to be the greatest chess player in the world to tell am immortal game from one that isn't.

This computer generation of chess players doesn't do immortal games anymore. The last true immortal game of chess was played by Vishy vs Levon in 2013, and even Vishy could hardly be said to be a computer generation chess player.

The fact is that since 1997 when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue the new players were taught that a computer could take down the best chess player in history (which is what Kasparov could very reasonably lay claim to being), so lets learn how the computer plays. The computer model is the way to go forward.

From that point on the focus shifted from doing what one could to gain an initiative to playing scared, and always sticking to equality. For if you give the computer an inch, it will crush you, and so will the player who has learned chess from its computer teacher.

Even after the defeat to Deep Blue, Kasparov played a true immortal game against Topalov, but the players were already regarding the computer as the new supreme being in chess.

Gradually everything the human players of the present or past did came to be looked at through the engine's glasses. Suddenly great immortal games of the likes of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy started being 'refuted' by the computer. If their opponent had play 'this' move instead of what they played they would have got equality.

This assessment has since come to be treated as the gospel unshakeable truth spoken by a higher being.

Today after Stockfish's humbling at the hands of Alphazero, one could definitely dare to re-look at all those assessments. After stockfish in its game always felt it was playing moves that gave it equality, but it still lost. So clearly stockfish's vision has a limit.

So what if the limits that the chess engines of this world have placed on this great game of ours are also flawed.

Stockfish refuted the line, is a phrase I have heard countless times in reference to the games of the old masters. However what if stockfish was wrong. What if in those games there is a counter to stockfish's refutation that we so far have been unable to spot.

The point is not that there must be one. However just think of how an entire generation of chess players have been restricted by the limitations of the chess engines which they regard has the all powerful being in chess.

They have all been taught to play chess a particular way - the computer way, and have been taught to be timid in their approach and always to toe the equality line. What if this equality line is flawed and the old masters had it right all along.

Chess is not a game to play to draw, but a game in which to be creative to always push for the win. There is a saying in chess that each generation stands on the shoulder of giants. However we may not be able to say that of this generation if alphazero's games hold up to scrutiny.

This generation of chess players will be considered the aberration, the generation that left the path of the romantic chess of the previous generations and embarked on a journey with myopic vision of the game, limited even further by the fear of losing equality rather than a sense of adventure and willing to push for the win.

This may come to be the legacy of the current generation and that is a shame.

Basically, what I am getting from this article is that computers have ruined chess. No, look at Wesley So's Immortal game in the blitz tournament. Also, humans are making fewer and fewer mistakes at chess, leading to more draws.

Stockfish wasn't "humbled" at all. It had 1gb of ram playing against something that had virtually infinite hardware resources. I'm pretty sure even old Crafty or the first version of Fritz could beat Stockfish if it had those resources. Don't believe anything these AI or neural networks guys tell you, it's all bullshit and shame on the outlets carrying this Fake News. 

@TameLava - No, what I intend to say is the alphazero could just have saved chess from being reduced to a boring just play for equality drawfest.

Alphazero has shown that the aim should not be to be equal at all times but to continually look for the advantage, even if it means sacrificing material. That is the core principle of the romantic era of chess. Eventually chess players will realise this and the method of play adopted by the players of this generation will be shunned by the generations to come.

Sorry but that is 100% false and you could not be more wrong.

First of all you don't understand AlphaGo's play, I don't understand it, nobody does. 

Secondly, nearly every one of those romantic era chess plays has been found to be faulty by computers. Those attacks only worked because players were unable withstand the attack properly. It's like walking a tightrope, but if they managed to do it it would be an easy victory because they had an extra piece. The current grandmasters will gladly face all these complications and walk out intact. Only rarely were any of those attacks actually sound. 

3) EVEN IF more aggressive play was shown to be superior, that doesn't for one second mean that it would be a good idea for humans to try it. A super computer may happily play into the Fried Liver for black, while for a human it would be toast. Just because a computer can do something doesn't mean a human should try the same thing. Humans have to take their own strengths and weaknesses into account. Something that is good for a computer certainly doesn't make it good for a human. When human chess players play aggressively their results go way down. 

What does a "good move" mean? The only thing it means is it will make it easier for the player playing to win in future. So personal strengths and preferences comes into it as well. There is no objective "good move". Ultimately Alphago has little or nothing to teach humans about playing good chess.  

It's a good thing that chess is relative

Technically, Alphazero has shown that some players, especially younger ones, have been very successful due to their similar style in being very familiar with opening theory and concepts of the openings but not studying very deeply. Look at Mr. Carlsen. He knows everything there is to know about openings, but he doesn't make it specifically necessary to analyze 20-30 moves into theory. This is in contrast to most other top players like the players that will compete in the Candidates Tournaments. But most players up and coming, are probably relying on stamina for the middle-game as opposed to being deadlocked for the best-extracted opening advantage.

Here are a few notable games from the past 2 years. Are they not to your taste?

Wei-Bruzon: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1795096

Bai-Ding: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1891363

Navara-Wojtaszek: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1795647

Personally, I think it's a golden time for chess. The quantity, quality, and interestingness of the games is higher than it's ever been.

OP, Paavo Nurmi won the 1500 and 5000 m race (establishing a new olympic record on both) the same day. Do you think he (or anyone else) could do it nowadays?

One thing a lot of times you find in these 'immortal' games is a lower leveled opponent who makes the moves he's supposed to make leading to the 'immortal' game.   

Hicham El Guerrouj could have done that a mere 15 years ago.

No. And, just in case and to be more specific, Nurmi had one hour of rest between the races.

Well, maybe in primary school games.

@Uhohspaghettio1 - "Secondly, nearly every one of those romantic era chess plays has been found to be faulty by computers."

Exactly the point that I am making. Players started playing in 'lets not lose mode' because of the so-called refutations of the games of the past.

The computer says you know instead of the move played there if the guy that played 'this' move he would be fine. We believed these assessments as the gospel, but now we know the mode of making these assessments is itself vulnerable.

Stockfish in the games against Alphazero made moves believing those moves help it stay in the game, but it didn't work did it?

So the computer says 'this' is a better move, went out of the window at the end of stockfish's hammering by Alphazero. Sure Stockfish could refute a line, but then there maybe another line, which stockfish evaluates as equal, that could just lead to a win in those old games.

I do agree that just because a computer could play in a particular way, doesnt mean that a human could play that way too. However how will be know till the top players of today shed this boring play not to lose mentality.

I feel that if the players are as adventurous the masters of the past, helped on by a better guide in tune with that approach like alphazero, then we may realise that the modern way of just looking for equality was wrong.

This generation will then be one giant lesson for the coming generations on what to avoid, which would be a shame.

Not sure what this has to do with computers. Lasker, who was WC 123 years ago, said the ending of Anderssen's Immortal couldn't be more brilliant, but the previous stages of the game were painful to watch.

Yes, and to be even more specific, Daniel Komen could have done that with less than an hour between races in Hechtel, Belgium on July 19, 1997, had the meet been structured that way. 

I agree completely that this is the golden age of chess!  I do worry that after this generation, young players will gravitate towards other games. But for now, we are seeing the best players in history face each other and fight it out in game after game. Yeah, many of those games are draws, but almost all of them involve fighting chess. 

Sorry, but "did" and "could have done" are not the same, could be, who knows, but anyway my point is, if there's not Evergreen at top level is because players don't allow it.

Every year for at least a decade engines have been getting about 100 Elo stronger.

But AlphaZero comes along, tops a hamstrung SF by a measly 100 Elo, and patzers lose their minds, making rambling ridiculous posts concerning a game they barely know anything about.