5 ms·

I believe that to people like Magnus it goes beyond "the job becoming boring" and his stance alludes directly to Fischer's disillusionment with the game – lacki

by ale 1y ago

I believe that to people like Magnus it goes beyond "the job becoming boring" and his stance alludes directly to Fischer's disillusionment with the game – lacking in genuine and human creativity.

neom 1y ago
I don't play or know anything about Chess so I went to look up your comment, I presume it's about this gent: https://www.chess.com/blog/Mx_Nat/why-bobby-fischer-hated-chess https://www.chess.com/blog/Mx_Nat/why-bobby-fischer-hated-ch... I read the above and it made me feel he was annoyed that Chess is a strategic zero sum game? "preparation and memorization than pure skill and innovation" - I think (at least in the zero sum strategy game I love) - prep + data IS the skill and innovation, how do you prep and where do you get your data, that's the joy of the game?
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago
  > he was annoyed that Chess is a strategic zero sum game? No, he's complaining about the depth of the decision tree at the start of the game.
  - neom 1y ago
    I understand, but isn't the opening decision tree depth IS the zero sum nature playing out?? the depth of the opening decision tree exactly what you'd expect in a zero sum strategic game? In any highly competitive zero sum environment (poker, business, etc.), players will inevitably explore and optimize every available edge, ESPECIALLY preparation? That was the fun of it I thought? Any arms race in opening theory is a natural consequence of the zero sum structure... if memorizing 25 moves gives you an edge over someone who memorized 23, the competitive pressure forces everyone deeper into preparation?
    - thom 1y ago
      Yes and that's exactly what's happened. It's also happened in various sports as we've optimised strategies there. The argument is just that the sum of all these marginal gains is a worse spectacle and less fun for practitioners. And so those practitioners propose other formats like Fischer Random or shorter time controls to rebalance things.
      - neom 1y ago
        Less fun for the players who lose because they don't like that way of playing? If you enjoy that way of play, winning would be a lot of fun I'd suspect? He created a new way of playing I read? His strengths (calculation?) matter most, his weakness (willingness to grind opening theory) is neutralized, nobody else can gain the preparation advantages that were starting to threaten his dominance? What is "pure chess"? The more I read about this guy the more I feel he's both... a bit lazy and a sore loser?
        MagnumOpus 1y ago
        Nearly no player enjoys the grind of memorising opening theory. But every high level player has to do months of it because every other player does months of it. It is a negative-sum equilibrium for them. Prep can be neutralised with prep but no chess player got into the game because they enjoy it. So any variation that eliminates the need for preparation is a gain for both the winner and the loser. And Magnus Carlsen is not a sore loser, he can both out-prep and out-calculate anyone in the world; hence the credibility of him suggesting that classical is not fun is higher than anyone else’s - because they could be called sore losers…
        neom 1y ago
        To be clear: the sore loser guy I was calling was the guy who invented is his own chess style, not Magnus! I would have thought most players got deep into the game because they enjoy winning, I like playing the games I win anyway, but the games I play and win are always zero sum strategy games that require a lot of research. The NBA is like the most research and prep filled strategic zero sum game right now I think, people seem to still love watching and playing basketball.
thom 1y ago
Sure, this is just cause and effect. Doing months of work for a World Championship cycle or slogging through 20 moves of supercomputer prep is boring _because_ it impoverishes the creative side of the game. I'm just saying a lot of people here probably recognise the same pattern between the magic of computing in their youth and the reality of a lot of enterprise tech jobs.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mcv 1y ago
That's exactly why Magnus is now championing Free Style Chess, originally promoted by Fischer: you randomize the starting position of the pieces, which makes traditional opening theory useless. That cuts away a lot of the memorization and introduces a lot of new creativity. It's not entirely surprising that both of these world champions saw that as a way to keep the game interesting. Something else that Magnus sometimes does, even against fellow grandmasters, is play a completely ridiculous opening that's obviously bad. But more importantly, it's different, and all the existing opening theory goes out the window.
- thom 1y ago
  Including his recent "Berlin regret" against Caruana (which was more about bringing a position back into boring territory than trying for chaos, admittedly).
- dnel 1y ago
  Games that start with the Bongcloud attack are fun to watch if only for the facial expressions that follow.

by ale 1y ago

I believe that to people like Magnus it goes beyond "the job becoming boring" and his stance alludes directly to Fischer's disillusionment with the game – lacking in genuine and human creativity.

neom 1y ago

I don't play or know anything about Chess so I went to look up your comment, I presume it's about this gent: https://www.chess.com/blog/Mx_Nat/why-bobby-fischer-hated-chess https://www.chess.com/blog/Mx_Nat/why-bobby-fischer-hated-ch... I read the above and it made me feel he was annoyed that Chess is a strategic zero sum game? "preparation and memorization than pure skill and innovation" - I think (at least in the zero sum strategy game I love) - prep + data IS the skill and innovation, how do you prep and where do you get your data, that's the joy of the game?

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
> he was annoyed that Chess is a strategic zero sum game? No, he's complaining about the depth of the decision tree at the start of the game.
- neom 1y ago
  I understand, but isn't the opening decision tree depth IS the zero sum nature playing out?? the depth of the opening decision tree exactly what you'd expect in a zero sum strategic game? In any highly competitive zero sum environment (poker, business, etc.), players will inevitably explore and optimize every available edge, ESPECIALLY preparation? That was the fun of it I thought? Any arms race in opening theory is a natural consequence of the zero sum structure... if memorizing 25 moves gives you an edge over someone who memorized 23, the competitive pressure forces everyone deeper into preparation?
  - thom 1y ago
    Yes and that's exactly what's happened. It's also happened in various sports as we've optimised strategies there. The argument is just that the sum of all these marginal gains is a worse spectacle and less fun for practitioners. And so those practitioners propose other formats like Fischer Random or shorter time controls to rebalance things.
    - neom 1y ago
      Less fun for the players who lose because they don't like that way of playing? If you enjoy that way of play, winning would be a lot of fun I'd suspect? He created a new way of playing I read? His strengths (calculation?) matter most, his weakness (willingness to grind opening theory) is neutralized, nobody else can gain the preparation advantages that were starting to threaten his dominance? What is "pure chess"? The more I read about this guy the more I feel he's both... a bit lazy and a sore loser?
      - MagnumOpus 1y ago
        Nearly no player enjoys the grind of memorising opening theory. But every high level player has to do months of it because every other player does months of it. It is a negative-sum equilibrium for them. Prep can be neutralised with prep but no chess player got into the game because they enjoy it. So any variation that eliminates the need for preparation is a gain for both the winner and the loser. And Magnus Carlsen is not a sore loser, he can both out-prep and out-calculate anyone in the world; hence the credibility of him suggesting that classical is not fun is higher than anyone else’s - because they could be called sore losers…
        neom 1y ago
        To be clear: the sore loser guy I was calling was the guy who invented is his own chess style, not Magnus! I would have thought most players got deep into the game because they enjoy winning, I like playing the games I win anyway, but the games I play and win are always zero sum strategy games that require a lot of research. The NBA is like the most research and prep filled strategic zero sum game right now I think, people seem to still love watching and playing basketball.

thom 1y ago

Sure, this is just cause and effect. Doing months of work for a World Championship cycle or slogging through 20 moves of supercomputer prep is boring _because_ it impoverishes the creative side of the game. I'm just saying a lot of people here probably recognise the same pattern between the magic of computing in their youth and the reality of a lot of enterprise tech jobs.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mcv 1y ago

That's exactly why Magnus is now championing Free Style Chess, originally promoted by Fischer: you randomize the starting position of the pieces, which makes traditional opening theory useless. That cuts away a lot of the memorization and introduces a lot of new creativity. It's not entirely surprising that both of these world champions saw that as a way to keep the game interesting. Something else that Magnus sometimes does, even against fellow grandmasters, is play a completely ridiculous opening that's obviously bad. But more importantly, it's different, and all the existing opening theory goes out the window.

thom 1y ago
Including his recent "Berlin regret" against Caruana (which was more about bringing a position back into boring territory than trying for chaos, admittedly).
dnel 1y ago
Games that start with the Bongcloud attack are fun to watch if only for the facial expressions that follow.