There appeared an essay by HARTOSH SINGH BAL, entilted ‘Chessmate’ in the Latitude blog on the NY Times website yesterday. ( latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2 … urnaments/)
It states: "Hartosh Singh Bal is political editor of Open Magazine and co-author of “A Certain Ambiguity.’’ It says nothing about whether or not he plays chess.
He writes, “Computers have so flattened the game of chess that even novices like me can make some sense of the moves being played at the highest level.”
I wonder if that is becoming true? If so, it can only be a positive thing for chess. One of the major problems chess has always had is that it is difficult to understand in the same way football is much harder to understand for a neophyte than baseball, for instance. Try teaching a woman who knows nothing about either game and you will understand what I write. See George Carlin’s classic “Baseball vs Football” youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0
In the last paragraph the author writes, “With chess, though, some truths are simply unknowable without a computer.”
To understand the context you will need to read the whole article, but I cannot help but wonder if, “…some truths are simply unknowable without a computer.” Seems like humans came to learn truth long before 'puters appeared on the scene. What I’ve written begs the question, “What is truth?” Plug that into your machine…
Armchair Warrior
Not Really!!
When Hal, Colossus or Siri can tell us in words the long or short of what the best move is
and why based upon our strength, it then becomes a game changer for humans.
For now computers can only show variations, symbols, or numeric evaluations.
Which means what?
Try putting in one of your games into Fritz 10 and run it in full analysis mode.
Repeat it 3 times with the same parameters like 30 sec and observe it give you 4 different results. Truth or Lies!!
Try putting in a position for analysis like rook and 5 pawns VS rook and 5 pawns to see if it is a good idea to force a rook exchange to go into a pure pawn ending.
Observe that your move that forces the exchange is one of the first 12 moves(variations) that Houdini 1.5a considers.
But all of the first 12 moves that Houdini has analyzed are within a range of .15 .
What to do and why??
Try putting in an game for analysis with Houdini 1.5a and try to figure the suggested moves that have no explanation !?!? All I could say was Whatttt?
EX.
- d4 d5
- c4 e6
- Nf3 Nf6
- Bf4 Bd6 {last book move}
- Ne5 Nh5
- e3 {Covers f4} Nxf4
- exf4 c6 (7… O-O 8. Be2 =/+)
- cxd5 (8. Nc3 Be7 =) exd5 =/+
- Bd3 (9. Be2 a5 =/+)
OK, but –
A bit sexist, don’t you think? Try teaching ME about football, and we’ll all understand, equally well, what you write.
One thing I’ve never understood is, how many innings are there in football?
Bill Smythe
No, man from the Black Hills, I most certainly do not think what I wrote is “a bit sexist.” I will admit that I cannot control what you, or anyone else, thinks, though. The fact is that I have had the opportunity to try and teach the rudiments of both games to several women previously, finding it easier for them to learn baseball. I have never, not one time, ever been in the position of teaching either game to a male. It would have been disingenuous, at the very least, of me to have written in a gender neutral way when my personal experience has only involved women, don’t you think?
I am reminded of the young fellow who was nice enough to take the time to inform me that I had crossed a line and was showing my age by using the term Oriental. He went on to inform me that the word, Oriental, was now considered a pejorative, but he understood how “someone your age” may not be aware of the change and still use antiquated words without meaning any harm, even though use of such words are politically incorrect.
He was stunned and at a loss for words when I informed him I had been using the politically incorrect, pejorative, word to describe the Oriental House restaurant. I suggested he go tell them the name they chose for their business last century was now considered politically incorrect and pejorative. He declined…
Google search “political correctness chess”.
A real hoot!
Dan
Nocab: It was completely sexist.
In addition, you’re anecdotal evidence does not extrapolate out onto a larger population in any way that is meaningful or accurate.
Mr De Credico, I will keep your advisement in mind while being recognizant of the fact it emanates from the only person ever asked to leave the Atlanta Chess & Game Center because of the use of inappropriate language around women and children.
Armchair Warrior
Years ago, I discussed this with a woman of Japanese ancestry, and she told me that “Oriental” is fine when referring to inanimate objects, such as rugs, but “Asian” is more appropriate when referring to people. Kinda like using “Scotch” is when referring to whiskey, but “Scottish” or “Scots” in most other contexts.
Why the broad term “Asian”? Why not country of origin or ancestry?
IE, Chinese, Japanese, Indian or Vietnamese.
Why are those of French, Irish or German descent, not called European?
And why are those of Asian descent, hyphenated?
IE, Asian-American.
I never heard of a French-American or European-American.
Perhaps these questions are best left to the politically motivated!
But I digress from my previous thoughts about my chessmate - The Computer!!
My friend NM Neal Harris took me to the Asiana restaurant in Asheville where we had a wonderful meal of Oriental food.
Armchair Warrior
One day you may realize that perception is what forms reality and that it is not up to any individual to determine what other people feel is offensive.
Occidentals are always so reluctant to give up their myopea.
You’ve got to be kidding. Grouping or specificity obviously depends on context and intention.
[b]Forgive me for my 1st and last digression in these forums.
Possibly I was too naive to believe this topic would be a discussion about chess and computers as my 1st post in this topic indicated.
How did this turn into an Asian topic?
I guess I couldn’t take it anymore!!
I thought the discussion was based upon this from the OP:[/b]
Have Fun and Goodbye!
Once upon a time, there was a prejudice against exchanging one’s “good” bishop; moves like 4…Bd6 seem to be fashionable nowadays, as Black prioritizes neutralizing the Bf4. White’s 5th says, “I want to strongpoint e5, I don’t want to simplify.” Black plays to win the two bishops, and White’s 6th & 7th turn this problem into a virtue, strongpointing with pawns (the idea is known from the Catalan).
So how does Black undermine White’s center? Maybe …g5 is in Black’s future, or maybe after a future g2-g3, …h7-h5-h4. It’s fascinating that wing moves can be used as a very indirect way to undermine a seemingly stable (but inflexible) center. And maybe the Bd6 is better placed on e7 for this limited end.
And where does Black’s Nb8 belong? If Black allows trade of horsies, then White could (eventually) stick sole remaining horsie on e5. If Black plays an immediate …Na6, then c4xd5 followed by Bf1xa6 ruins Black’s pawn structure. I like to solve such problems by playing for “impossible” moves like …e6-e5 (cf. the “Cannonball” manuever …Ne8, …f6, …e5 against the Stonewall Attack–in that line, Black puts the N on e8 instead of d7 because after …f6, Black doesn’t want White to be able to play Ne5xd7 with tempo), but Black needs to be fully & safely developed before…f7-f6, then …e6-e5. It’s a knight-friendly position now, but if Black can break the central bind, Black will be better because of the two bishops. Black’s central pawn formation is very stable, but not very bishop-friendly.
The above is 50% serious, 50% Prof. Irwin Corey. Wouldn’t 9…a5 be just as effective against 9.Bd3? Perhaps 9.Be2 is useless development and White’s f4-f5 means something?
Alternatively (I like this theory better), Houdini may be able to kill us, but we shouldn’t ascribe to it opening expertise or positional subtlety that it doesn’t have. 
How long did Houdini run in the given positions?
Chess is hard, even for Houdini.