4 ms·
Objectively the limits have always been players memory. Sure, computer analysis has marginally changed how some openings are viewed and sure you can now get an
by WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Objectively the limits have always been players memory.
Sure, computer analysis has marginally changed how some openings are viewed and sure you can now get an engine evaluation of all the variations of some obscure line in a matter of seconds but novelties remain rare at the top level. Stockfisch is extremely strong because it can play near perfect positional play and can establish micro-advantage through deep calculation not because it fundamentally changed how chess theory is viewed.
AlphaZero might be the sole exception to my point. It did indeed show that modern chess was neglecting some strategical concept but to be honest it was more a rehabilitation of old ideas than a pure novelty.
- bonzini 4y agoAlphaZero showed that modern chess was neglecting some strategical concept because engines were. Unlike Go, neural networks play very bold moves but perhaps in a more human than traditional brute force. But nowadays Stockfish and Leela have both caught up and surpassed AlphaZero.