Play like a Grandmaster - or a chess engine. . .
Tempo has presented a differing opinion to my approach to training games, with certain criticisms based his experience.
The problem with arguing against my approach is that it's difficult to dispute the facts. Let's take a trot back to Toiletgate, that infamous time when Topalov's manager, Silvio Danailov, complained that Kramnik was using a chess engine to make his moves. Remember the metric he gave: Kramnik was making about 80% of the top moves suggested by Fritz. Kramnik's team shot back that Topalov had made close to 80% of the top moves suggested by Fritz in the San Luis tournament.
And to top it all off, the other 20% of their moves were so close to the top move suggested by the chess engine that it really came down to a matter of style, blunders notwithstanding.
So, I guess if I'm going to try to make moves like a Grandmaster, it wouldn't hurt to use a chess engine to evaluate my games. I mean, if I can get 80% of their moves, I'm 80% of the way to playing like a GM. . .
Pleasant chess to all.
P.S. Chess engines aren't right because they say they are right. Chess engines are right because they win! :)
The problem with arguing against my approach is that it's difficult to dispute the facts. Let's take a trot back to Toiletgate, that infamous time when Topalov's manager, Silvio Danailov, complained that Kramnik was using a chess engine to make his moves. Remember the metric he gave: Kramnik was making about 80% of the top moves suggested by Fritz. Kramnik's team shot back that Topalov had made close to 80% of the top moves suggested by Fritz in the San Luis tournament.
And to top it all off, the other 20% of their moves were so close to the top move suggested by the chess engine that it really came down to a matter of style, blunders notwithstanding.
So, I guess if I'm going to try to make moves like a Grandmaster, it wouldn't hurt to use a chess engine to evaluate my games. I mean, if I can get 80% of their moves, I'm 80% of the way to playing like a GM. . .
Pleasant chess to all.
P.S. Chess engines aren't right because they say they are right. Chess engines are right because they win! :)
posted by J'adoube @ 7:05 AM
17 Comments:
Frankly i think you might benefit more by sparring against a regular club player (1400-1700) who can talk to you about where you went wrong. If i wanted to get good at basketball, i'd learn more by working with an ordinary HS or YMCA basketball coach than by challenging Michael Jordan to 1-on-1. Same sort of thing here.
Just trying to be constructive.
If you had to choose between using a chess engine to help with post game analysis, versus a good human coach (IM or GM level), which would you choose?
I hope that is a rhetorical question.
You will never play like a computer. Never. You will always be limited by your brain, and its wet 'n' messy, pattern-using, symbol-hating cognitive architecture. For similar reasons, you will never do long-division like a calculator. Even though the calculator is better at long division than any human, I'd rather learn long division from a human than just get the right answers from a calculator. Of course the calculator can be a useful tool, but in chess you can't use the computer when it counts: in real games against humans.
Note this isn't about who is more right (computer vs human) in some objective sense, but about which analysis is more helpful. Clearly it is humans.
Patrick,
Essentially you make the same point I do - when evaluating positions I let the engine go 10-12 moves deep so I can see what the line is progressing to. From that I can see what the evaluation is heading for and then understand why I should play the line.
This takes longer than human interaction but the result is the same.
Also, I think you misunderstand - I'm not challenging the chess engine - I'm going to school on it - just like I wouldn't challenge Jordan, but I would go to his basketball camp.
And I do have Ed around to mentor me as well. . .and he's a class A player. . .
Thanks!
Of course the calculator can be a useful tool, but in chess you can't use the computer when it counts: in real games against humans.
Before this is misconstrued, I know you can't use a coach in real games either, but my point was that you want the analysis to be something that is most helpful in real games, not necessarily the most objectively right, especially since the methods used by the computer aren't feasible for human players. The methods/heuristics used by IMs and GMs are feasible for human players.
Note I'm not trying to say not to use computers. I'm just pushing against the claim that computers are not as good at humans. They are worse than humans, at teaching chess. But, they are free, never need a break, and are simply kick-ass at finding tactics. I use them for all my games to find tactical blunders.
BDK,
You are right of course, in the sense that human interaction will always provide more information to me.
On the other hand, I'm not really trying to emulate the way a chess engine arrives at the move, I'm just trying to arrive at the same move. There is a distinction, at least to my messy little grey matter. . .
I can understand the chess engine evaluation by looking deep into it's lines - 10 or 12 moves. I won't get the same effect as a GM explaining it to me, but I do benefit.
;)
BDK,
Thanks for all the explanations. I definitely agree I will never think like a computer, although my wife accuses me of it all the time [grin].
I still wonder if we aren't talking past each other though - I'm really using the chess engine to suggest stronger lines - not trying to use the same process to arrive at the answer it does. Of course I could never do that. But, I can attempt to arrive at the same move sequence it does by studying the lines it recommends (10-12 moves deep) and attempting to understand why it is playing the way it does.
I understand better your approach: I guess that's what we are all doing with computers. Use them to find a good move, and see if I can find some way to make it more likely to come up with it myself. The danger is that the computer becomes a crutch and we stop thinking about our moves, but it doesn't seem like you have that problem.
Fritz really is amazing, like having your own little GM in a box hand you moves (but he is mute so can't actually explain them, so you have to figure out what he is saying just by looking at more moves, for the most part).
(Note in my previous post I said "pushing against the claim that computers are not as good at humans" when I meant "humans are not as good as computers.")
Fritz really is amazing, like having your own little GM in a box hand you moves (but he is mute so can't actually explain them, so you have to figure out what he is saying just by looking at more moves, for the most part).
Mind if I use this quote in a future post?
Sure. I'd be honored.
By the way, congrats on dropping an A-bomb in the chess blogosphere. :)
By the way, congrats on dropping an A-bomb in the chess blogosphere. :)
Heh. Gotta get those blog hit numbers up somehow or I'm never gonna make money off this thing :)
I just wish Takchess was around to jump in on the fun too. . .he's always good for a sharp jab every now and then. . .
I could have guessed it, you just needed some attention. In you recent comments you came across as a seriously frustrated guy. Maybe you should get some help. And I don't mean on chess.
Fierabras-
Sorry the sarcasm was lost on you. :)
As the Beatles used to sing, I get by with a little help from my friends. . .
J'adoube,
Maybe you should take a long hard look at yourself and try to find out why you are being so childish.
Ok Fierabras,
I was trying to be a nice guy, but you don't seem to know how to disagree without being disagreeable.
So here's the facts: Guys like you are all across the internet. You hide behind internet and shoot your piehole off with these kind of insults but the reality is you'd never have the stones to say this face to face because you know someone would knock your Johnson in the dirt.
Now, if my posts are offensive to your tender sensibilities, feel free not to read them.
This conversation has taken a turn south, and is not what the Knights are about. I highly suggest anyone feeling the need to respond emotionally to any post, take a moment to reread this.
http://sanchopawnza.blogspot.com/
2005/08/cease-fire-truce-timeout.html
Thanks!
Sancho
Sancho,
I left you a message on ICC. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home