View top level chess as two super GMs playing a game in three rounds. * Round 1: negotiate the starting position, aka 'and now we have a new game of chess' *

View top level chess as two super GMs playing a game in three rounds. * Round 1: negotiate the starting position, aka 'and now we have a new game of chess' * Round 2: play chess using prep. generally only one side fully benefits during this phase. * Round 3: play chess Computers mostly impact human chess in round 2. It's not just as if you had every human super GM working for you for X years, X as large as you want; the ideas from computer analysis go beyond that. The role of humans in round 2 is looking at computer lines and deciding if the ideas might be transferred to human chess. Computers do not seem to inform/impact the game of poker as much, absent cheating. Computer cheating, though, where you are aware of the computer's complete evaluation of a position, would seem to be less impactful w/r/t poker than with chess. A computer (eg: Stockfish) crushes a super GM without mercy. So I have issues with saying 'X is just Y' now, because it seems to be different on both ends. If you decide that the three round structure above is problematic, Fischer 960 dramatically changes rounds 1-2. But that's a different game.