4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWell 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 agoI'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.