2 ms·

Back in the 1970s, I was very interested in chess. When I should have been doing my topology homework, I'd instead waste time pouring over MCO (Modern Chess Ope

by todd8 4y ago

Back in the 1970s, I was very interested in chess. When I should have been doing my topology homework, I'd instead waste time pouring over MCO (Modern Chess Openings) studying the hundreds of variations that worked or didn't worked based on historical games. It was really no fun trying to memorize these variations. It took so long setting up boards, following lines, and trying to figure out how the game strategy would change depending on an opponents moves. For a mediocre player like myself, the advent of chess software that understands the game at a deep GM level has made studying chess fun. I can play computer opponents over and over, rapidly trying out the variations and seeing the outcome. I can ask for help, I can see what I'm doing wrong. I can easily spend an hour solving chess puzzles that improve my tactics. To me, really not a good player, I enjoy chess more than ever; the article seems not to understand how chess software impacts the game.

taftster 4y ago
What you're describing is an interesting outcome of chess engines. I assume that the game at the top of the heap, at the grandmaster level, has certainly become dull and void of creativity, as the article describes. But for us mere mortals, I wonder if the game of chess has become more exciting, as the concepts you can reach now were just not achievable for amateurs studying from books, as in the old days. The game of chess has no doubt changed because of chess engines. And maybe for the negative at the top end. But I think you're right, it's probably a lot more positive change in the middle. I have long since known that I am not capable of beating a chess engine in regular play, but that doesn't mean I don't benefit from the loss.
croes 4y ago
I don't know. Must be hard for a professional if you not only compete against human creativity but sheer computing power. Just like Dall-E, it's fun if you can't paint not so much if it's your source of income.

by todd8 4y ago

taftster 4y ago

What you're describing is an interesting outcome of chess engines. I assume that the game at the top of the heap, at the grandmaster level, has certainly become dull and void of creativity, as the article describes. But for us mere mortals, I wonder if the game of chess has become more exciting, as the concepts you can reach now were just not achievable for amateurs studying from books, as in the old days. The game of chess has no doubt changed because of chess engines. And maybe for the negative at the top end. But I think you're right, it's probably a lot more positive change in the middle. I have long since known that I am not capable of beating a chess engine in regular play, but that doesn't mean I don't benefit from the loss.

croes 4y ago

I don't know. Must be hard for a professional if you not only compete against human creativity but sheer computing power. Just like Dall-E, it's fun if you can't paint not so much if it's your source of income.