So much memorization is involved nowadays. I understand why carlsen plays the way he does nowadays. Better to play some suboptimal moves and get opponents thinking on their own as early as possible instead of going down the rabbithole of line memorizations.
Yeah, I noted something similar in a Fabiano interview recently; he played h3 in an otherwise theoretical line and when asked he said there is absolutely no clever idea behind it, it was only thrown in because the engine didn't suggest it so it would likely get the opponent out of prep. It seems that the future of classical chess somewhat ironically is to play suboptimal engine moves and then try to outplay the opponent when you're no longer facing 3500-rated engine preparation. On the flip side, Fabiano also commented on Magnus playing 1...a6 as a response to e4, saying that if you actually prepared some of these very stupid-looking early moves with a good engine you can actually make it work against an unprepared opponent. This seems to suggest that it is harder than ever to prepare for everything and that at a lower level you should still be able to get good chances with most openings.
It's hard to imagine how good someone would have to be to beat a player that can recite all the relevant recent positions from memory and knows all his engine's recommendations for the positions 30 moves into the game.
All credit to him for his preparation but it's a bit of a sad time for chess when they are just playing memorised lines. How many times did he say 'according to the engines'?
@@timestampingco Oh it has been for years. What is extremely interesting is that in a test of memorizing completely randomized and nonsensical chess positions, Grandmasters performed no better than the average player! However when the same test was performed using actual realistic positions the GMs completely crushed everyone else, as one would expect. This shows how extremely specialized their pattern recognition is and that even though it seems superhuman to most of us it doesn't necessarily mean that their memory will be that much better than normal people in other tasks.
4:53 it is just common sense that 3 connected extra passers are way stronger than one black knight Capablanca knew that, Alekhine knew that, young Fischer and Karpov knew that and they did not have any engines to evaluate position.
Because the free ones are only trustworthy to a certain level since they don't have the necessary compute to calculate deep enough. On a high level, everyone pays for cloud computing to run their analysis since a single misevaluation can be decisive. This very game might be an example of this very thing, Shirov claims to have analyzed this very position but either he misremembered or he was led astray by a weaker engine giving the wrong evaluation.
@@noone-ld7ptthe compute element is separate from the engine. But the idea is still correct. You can have the best engine get beat by a slightly worse one depending on the computational qualities given to them. The cloud computing angle is interesting… and it’s a shame it starts becoming about who can afford the most cloud compute get an edge of sorts.
@@noone-ld7pt You (and Samvel) are confusing engines (software) with computers (hardware). The best engines in the world (Stockfish and Leela) and both free and open source.
@@noone-ld7pt do you even use chess engine ? At depth 30 which most consumer computer can do, its already deep enough to get the best move. Computer usually give one or 2 best move and it doesnt change even if you crunch the number to depth 50. Human cant calculate as deep as 30 moves so its not worth it using cloud computing to get that 50 move depth. What you should actually pay atention is the engine. Stockfish are the best and 30 depth stockfish can beat random engine 50 depth cloud computing. So yes. You should not pay a single penny for chess engine, because the free one are the best.
Who said chess should only be about on the spot creativity during the game itself? What is the problem with players are able to show some very deep, beautiful ideas in their games which they spent hours analyzing and preparing? You are so focused on the memorization aspect that you have no respect for the effort it takes to discover such ideas - engines don't hold up a sign saying "oh look here, this is a very scary idea!", they show hundreds of options which are all equal for both sides and players have to search and find new ideas that have most winning chances practically when engine thinks every move is equal.
@@nandanprasad2871 let's stick with the tradition of how chess was meant to be played. Man vs Man and a board. Simplicity develops creativity, I think it's more enjoyable that way.
@@minaguirguis8897 Well in the past you were also allowed to adjourn during a game. Basically allowing players to consult with others about how to proceed in the game the next day, so the "tradition of how chess was meant to be played" is not as strong as you seem to think. Chess like everything has to evolve with the times. This is one of the big reasons Magnus is so strongly in favor of shorter time controls. It removes a lot of the memorization of computer lines and allows for more in-game creativity. I personally think speed chess is inevitably the future of chess since we are very close to having self-contained cheating devices be a massive problem. Once something as small as a Raspberry Pi is able to run a strong enough stockfish locally to outperform humans it will completely remove the need for an accomplice or even wifi access. At that point, the only way to prevent cheating is to either have the players play naked or shorten the time controls to a speed where they are not able to cheat fast enough.
I highly disagree, opening preparation is actually in a much better spot these days than it was 5 years ago. During the Fabi vs Carlsen match the consensus was that either you play the very best lines or you get worse and lose, and it basically turned the WC match into a memory competition. But Fabi recently said on his podcast that these days engines are showing that you can prepare even very stupid-looking moves and take your opponent out of preparation very early without necessarily being immediately worse. Players still need to prepare their openings of course like they've always had to, but engines are showing that there is a lot more freedom in how it is possible to play than what it seemed a few years ago.
@@noone-ld7pt I disagree. As Bobby Fischer said memorisation is at the top of the list, for example, I know all the possible lines in Max Lange attack by heart and nobody can beat me with black in any possible way. Creativity as Bobby said is almost at the bottom of the list, therefore, Fischer random is the only way forward.
@@kevinwellwrought2024 Who said chess should only be about on the spot creativity during the game itself? What is the problem with players are able to show some very deep, beautiful ideas in their games which they spent hours analyzing and preparing? You are so focused on the memorization aspect that you have no respect for the effort it takes to discover such ideas - engines don't hold up a sign saying "oh look here, this is a very scary idea!", they show hundreds of options which are all equal for both sides and players have to search and find new ideas that have most winning chances practically when engine thinks every move is equal.
Using engines like this is no longer competitive chess. You can prepare before a tournament using engines, but they should be banned once a tournament has started till its completion.
What? Why? and how? All of these players are capable of varying early enough that this should not really be a problem, and they should obviously always assume that their opponents have seen their latest games and prepare accordingly. Also, anti-cheating measures are hard to enforce even in the playing hall, are you suggesting that they keep players from using their phones, laptops, tablets, or even talking to their friends for weeks? This is how classical chess is played these days and though I personally agree that memorization and preparation is becoming a too big part of classical chess, I think the answer is to emphasize shorter time controls instead. Not to try and limit players ability to study chess for an entire tournament.
So much memorization is involved nowadays. I understand why carlsen plays the way he does nowadays. Better to play some suboptimal moves and get opponents thinking on their own as early as possible instead of going down the rabbithole of line memorizations.
Yeah, I noted something similar in a Fabiano interview recently; he played h3 in an otherwise theoretical line and when asked he said there is absolutely no clever idea behind it, it was only thrown in because the engine didn't suggest it so it would likely get the opponent out of prep. It seems that the future of classical chess somewhat ironically is to play suboptimal engine moves and then try to outplay the opponent when you're no longer facing 3500-rated engine preparation.
On the flip side, Fabiano also commented on Magnus playing 1...a6 as a response to e4, saying that if you actually prepared some of these very stupid-looking early moves with a good engine you can actually make it work against an unprepared opponent. This seems to suggest that it is harder than ever to prepare for everything and that at a lower level you should still be able to get good chances with most openings.
It's hard to imagine how good someone would have to be to beat a player that can recite all the relevant recent positions from memory and knows all his engine's recommendations for the positions 30 moves into the game.
All credit to him for his preparation but it's a bit of a sad time for chess when they are just playing memorised lines. How many times did he say 'according to the engines'?
didn't he just say
1.e5
mate in 50-ish
How do they remember all these things? I can't remember what I eat yesterday!!! even one day I forget my first name
😂😂
Give up alcohol, or drugs, or get more sleep.
modern chess is scary
He remembers alexi /vidit game. Every move and he remembers all the moves suggested by the engines. Impressive preparation and analysis.
add to that another 1000s of games that he remembers. Chess player's memory should be a research topic if it isn't already
@@timestampingco Oh it has been for years. What is extremely interesting is that in a test of memorizing completely randomized and nonsensical chess positions, Grandmasters performed no better than the average player! However when the same test was performed using actual realistic positions the GMs completely crushed everyone else, as one would expect.
This shows how extremely specialized their pattern recognition is and that even though it seems superhuman to most of us it doesn't necessarily mean that their memory will be that much better than normal people in other tasks.
4:53
it is just common sense that 3 connected extra passers are way stronger than one black knight
Capablanca knew that, Alekhine knew that, young Fischer and Karpov knew that and they did not have any engines to evaluate position.
Crazy game, white sacrificed the piece early and got better playable position against former candidate
Why would you pay for chess engine where there is multiple of them free ?
And how you use your free software?
Because the free ones are only trustworthy to a certain level since they don't have the necessary compute to calculate deep enough. On a high level, everyone pays for cloud computing to run their analysis since a single misevaluation can be decisive. This very game might be an example of this very thing, Shirov claims to have analyzed this very position but either he misremembered or he was led astray by a weaker engine giving the wrong evaluation.
@@noone-ld7ptthe compute element is separate from the engine. But the idea is still correct. You can have the best engine get beat by a slightly worse one depending on the computational qualities given to them. The cloud computing angle is interesting… and it’s a shame it starts becoming about who can afford the most cloud compute get an edge of sorts.
@@noone-ld7pt You (and Samvel) are confusing engines (software) with computers (hardware). The best engines in the world (Stockfish and Leela) and both free and open source.
@@noone-ld7pt do you even use chess engine ? At depth 30 which most consumer computer can do, its already deep enough to get the best move. Computer usually give one or 2 best move and it doesnt change even if you crunch the number to depth 50. Human cant calculate as deep as 30 moves so its not worth it using cloud computing to get that 50 move depth.
What you should actually pay atention is the engine. Stockfish are the best and 30 depth stockfish can beat random engine 50 depth cloud computing.
So yes. You should not pay a single penny for chess engine, because the free one are the best.
These guys memory is bizarre
Playing chess based on what a computer tells you what move to make, is not chess. No wonder Fisher developed Fisher random.
Who said chess should only be about on the spot creativity during the game itself? What is the problem with players are able to show some very deep, beautiful ideas in their games which they spent hours analyzing and preparing? You are so focused on the memorization aspect that you have no respect for the effort it takes to discover such ideas - engines don't hold up a sign saying "oh look here, this is a very scary idea!", they show hundreds of options which are all equal for both sides and players have to search and find new ideas that have most winning chances practically when engine thinks every move is equal.
@@nandanprasad2871 let's stick with the tradition of how chess was meant to be played. Man vs Man and a board. Simplicity develops creativity, I think it's more enjoyable that way.
@@minaguirguis8897 Well in the past you were also allowed to adjourn during a game. Basically allowing players to consult with others about how to proceed in the game the next day, so the "tradition of how chess was meant to be played" is not as strong as you seem to think. Chess like everything has to evolve with the times.
This is one of the big reasons Magnus is so strongly in favor of shorter time controls. It removes a lot of the memorization of computer lines and allows for more in-game creativity.
I personally think speed chess is inevitably the future of chess since we are very close to having self-contained cheating devices be a massive problem. Once something as small as a Raspberry Pi is able to run a strong enough stockfish locally to outperform humans it will completely remove the need for an accomplice or even wifi access. At that point, the only way to prevent cheating is to either have the players play naked or shorten the time controls to a speed where they are not able to cheat fast enough.
Most young players use engine moves nowadays. Fischer random must replace traditional chess.
I highly disagree, opening preparation is actually in a much better spot these days than it was 5 years ago. During the Fabi vs Carlsen match the consensus was that either you play the very best lines or you get worse and lose, and it basically turned the WC match into a memory competition.
But Fabi recently said on his podcast that these days engines are showing that you can prepare even very stupid-looking moves and take your opponent out of preparation very early without necessarily being immediately worse. Players still need to prepare their openings of course like they've always had to, but engines are showing that there is a lot more freedom in how it is possible to play than what it seemed a few years ago.
@@noone-ld7pt I disagree. As Bobby Fischer said memorisation is at the top of the list, for example, I know all the possible lines in Max Lange attack by heart and nobody can beat me with black in any possible way. Creativity as Bobby said is almost at the bottom of the list, therefore, Fischer random is the only way forward.
@@kevinwellwrought2024 Who said chess should only be about on the spot creativity during the game itself? What is the problem with players are able to show some very deep, beautiful ideas in their games which they spent hours analyzing and preparing? You are so focused on the memorization aspect that you have no respect for the effort it takes to discover such ideas - engines don't hold up a sign saying "oh look here, this is a very scary idea!", they show hundreds of options which are all equal for both sides and players have to search and find new ideas that have most winning chances practically when engine thinks every move is equal.
@@kevinwellwrought2024Nobody can beat you with black? Maybe you are the next world champ?
modern chess ====== memory.
High IQ … not everyone can have such good memory. Can’t even master london system move order lol
Using engines like this is no longer competitive chess. You can prepare before a tournament using engines, but they should be banned once a tournament has started till its completion.
According to me using engines to prepare before each round is all fair and square but using it during the game is cheating
What? Why? and how? All of these players are capable of varying early enough that this should not really be a problem, and they should obviously always assume that their opponents have seen their latest games and prepare accordingly. Also, anti-cheating measures are hard to enforce even in the playing hall, are you suggesting that they keep players from using their phones, laptops, tablets, or even talking to their friends for weeks?
This is how classical chess is played these days and though I personally agree that memorization and preparation is becoming a too big part of classical chess, I think the answer is to emphasize shorter time controls instead. Not to try and limit players ability to study chess for an entire tournament.
Good luck enforcing it.
It will be impossible to enforce. How would you know what all the players may be doing on their phones in their hotel rooms or houses?
First
What