4 ms·

An important piece of context here is that making a living by playing chess competitively is close to nil, so many even top players like Kramnik end up taking c

An important piece of context here is that making a living by playing chess competitively is close to nil, so many even top players like Kramnik end up taking consulting/PR jobs like this in order to pay the bills. I have a hard time believing Kramnik actually believes (or said directly) that AI ruined chess. My read is that he's not really promoting changes to the rules of chess as much as he's trying to build support for new types of chess variants. It's true that the highest levels of play include teams of researchers and computers that develop 30+ move preparation, but what we're also seeing as a result of that are games that are more precise, which IMO is a fundamental component of chess "beauty". Some notable games that were deemed "beautiful" in the past are now seen as less-beautiful as it became apparent that play was suboptimal. Chess beauty now is less about flashy combinations and more about qualities of a position and reverse engineering the "logic" behind certain AI moves, which is still great but admittedly requires more of an investment on learning the game than a spectator might care about. That framing, though, leaves out the massive benefit that AI has had in training and improving new players. It used to be that you needed to hire a chess master to play against and learn from in order to improve. Now your phone can easily give you a challenge of master-level strength, as well as analyze your games over the board to look for improvements.

misja111 6y ago
> Chess beauty now is less about flashy combinations and more about qualities of a position No it's the opposite. Since the advent of strong computer programs it has become clear that there are tactical intricacies in lots of positions that have long been overlooked by everyone, including top players. Gambits that everyone thought should not be accepted because it would give away a too strong positional advantage turned out to be winnable by clever defence moves. End games that were thought to be draws turned out to be winnable by although sometimes it would take more than 100 moves. The bottom line is that the tactical part of chess is deeper than most people thought.
- jayparth 6y ago
  Well I agree with your first example. But would you call someone who wins a supposedly drawn endgame after 100 moves a tactical player or positional player? No one I know would claim that what happened on the 100th move was a tactic. It was 90+ moves of jockeying for position.
  - ohyes 6y ago
    I'd call them a stubborn player. A human can't normally predict out 100 moves of optimal play, so that's why it is jockeying instead of being part of an intricate plan. I mean, it does bring the question, do you play a game for the experience or solely to win? I play games for the experience, the world's best chess player probably gets a thrill from being the best and winning. Obviously both experiences are legitimate and in competitive chess, studying historical games to learn patterns has always been a thing, so who's to say that studying scenarios 'solved' by a computer is really any different? Possibly there's a little less romance because a human didn't do it on their own? It doesn't appeal to me personally, but neither did studying chess moves. It really looks like a question of scale of preparation to me.

misja111 6y ago

> Chess beauty now is less about flashy combinations and more about qualities of a position No it's the opposite. Since the advent of strong computer programs it has become clear that there are tactical intricacies in lots of positions that have long been overlooked by everyone, including top players. Gambits that everyone thought should not be accepted because it would give away a too strong positional advantage turned out to be winnable by clever defence moves. End games that were thought to be draws turned out to be winnable by although sometimes it would take more than 100 moves. The bottom line is that the tactical part of chess is deeper than most people thought.

jayparth 6y ago
Well I agree with your first example. But would you call someone who wins a supposedly drawn endgame after 100 moves a tactical player or positional player? No one I know would claim that what happened on the 100th move was a tactic. It was 90+ moves of jockeying for position.
- ohyes 6y ago
  I'd call them a stubborn player. A human can't normally predict out 100 moves of optimal play, so that's why it is jockeying instead of being part of an intricate plan. I mean, it does bring the question, do you play a game for the experience or solely to win? I play games for the experience, the world's best chess player probably gets a thrill from being the best and winning. Obviously both experiences are legitimate and in competitive chess, studying historical games to learn patterns has always been a thing, so who's to say that studying scenarios 'solved' by a computer is really any different? Possibly there's a little less romance because a human didn't do it on their own? It doesn't appeal to me personally, but neither did studying chess moves. It really looks like a question of scale of preparation to me.