What’s the difference between today’s playing styles and when Fischer was playing?
I read a short article about the 2nd Spassky-Fischer match in 1992, and the writer said something to the effect it was like two old boxers going one last round for posterity sake and a paycheck.
I know Kasparov kinda bridge the divide between the old school players and the newer generation, in which computers just coming into the scene during Kasparov’s reign.
I would interpret the “old boxers” comment to mean that these two former world champions were not performing well below their pevious level of greatness. Without context, I don’t know that it references a difference between the playing style per se.
I wasn’t asking about the play of Fischer or Spassky, I was wondering about the changes of chess play/theory since the 1970’s. More of a general question about how technology has changed chess over the years. I was referencing Fischer “era” because I always felt that Bobby kinda represented the type of chess played before technology started changing how chess was studied and played.
But it was that article I mentioned that caught my curiosity.
This is an interesting question with much written in magazines and online concerning the question of how chess is played ‘AC’ as opposed to ‘BC.’ That is Before and After the rise of the machines.
Before continuing I must comment on “…Bobby kinda represented the type of chess played before technology started changing how chess was studied and played.”
This is interesting because all who became World Campion brought a different Chess philosophy to the board. It is possible to posit that a WCC will influence style as much in Chess as a POTUS will influence style in the US, if not the world. I am thinking of how JFK influenced style as opposed to Ike. But to say, “…Bobby kinda represented the type of chess played before technology…” could be a stretch. Remember, Bobby’s contemporaries included players with drastically differing styles. For example, Mikail Tal and Ulf Andersson. In addition, I should mention Tigran Petrosian and Bent Larsen. One could posit Anatoly Karpov is a better example of “…the type of chess played before technology…” since he was the last WC before the rise of the machines. Kasparov was the WC during the rise of the machine, as everyone knows, and that does not mean only Chess players.
As for the question, “…about the changes of chess play/theory since the 1970’s”… The first thought that popped into my brain upon reading these words was an article I read by a GM concerning the difference in endgame play sans adjournments. He wrote because of adjournments there was a DEEP study of endgames, which is lacking today. The next thought was an article I read online some years ago with deep endgame analysis of some of the younger players butchering endgames, which led the author to conclude that the players of former generations were better when it came to the endgame. He also wrote that with the advent of ever increasing shorter time controls things would not improve…
The other thought caused me to go back and seek a comment from Chessbase. It concerns the game between Richard Rapport and WC Magnus Carlsen played in the eight round of the recently concluded Tata Steel tournament. Magnus played 23…Ne5, given a ?! by the annotator, Alex Lenderman. After Rapport played 24 Bg2 (! Lindy) Magnus replied 24…Rc8. Lenderman gives 24…Ned7, writing, " The funny thing is stockfish (sic) thinks (No, “it” does not WMB) going back ned7 (that should be (Ned7) is the best move…"
Having studied many games of the TCEC championships over the past couple of decades one thing I have noted is that the “engines” will not hesitate to “advance to the rear.” I am reminded of the great Capablanca, who once moved his Rook from a1 to c1, then returned it to the original square the next move. After the game the journalists questioned him about his strategy, which led to a long endgame victory for Capa. He answered, “I realized moving the Rook to c1 was a bad move and returned it to where it belonged. If I had not made the move to c1 I would have won in 40 moves, not 80.”
It has been written that the WC, Magnus Carlsen, is best at “grinding.” I like to think Magnus looks at it like, “OK, it is a small advantage, but it is an ADVANTAGE!” I know Bobby thought of it that way…Then how to explain Magnus trading one of his two Bishops versus Karjakin in the match for the WC, which led to a draw, in lieu of keeping it on the board while continuing to torture Sergei? Was it fatigue, or did the WC become frustrated at the “irresistible force” emanating from his opponent? In some respects WC Magnus Carlsen best typifies the change brought to Chess by the “engines.” Still, I prefer the games of Rapport and Nakamura, just as I preferred the style of Tal as opposed to that of Karpov. This is not to say that the style of Karpov is not as good as that of Tal, just different. In some respects the play of Karpov and Petrosian can be consider deeper positionally and was closer to the way the machines “play.”
Well stated, nocab.
Back in Fischer’s day, the top players played much sharper openings as Black (Sicilians, Kings Indians, Benoni,s Benko gambits ). Today’s top players play much more conservatively with Black. Even in the Kasparov era sharp play with Black was prevalent.I suspect the reason is that computers have convinced today’s best players that taking risks and playing ultrasharp stuff as Black does not work well against the cold logic of silicon.
Back in the time of Fischer, Spassky, Larsen, et al., Petrosian referred to many of the younger players as “children of Informant.” Players at a higher level used the early Informants to prepare. It allowed them to find opening novelties, “TN”, in Informant parlance, which they could then further analyze to ramify or refute. Informants and the ECOs were the paper database before the computer revolution in the 1980’s speeded up the search for information. Older players relied on their own study and analysis of openings and the types of middlegames that might arise. Some lines were studied into the endgame. Whether young or old, I recall some players keeping thick notebooks of their research. Today, we can create and store files of games and research on a computer. Then as now, players have “pet” openings that they nurture and pamper.
During the 1970’s publishers printed out a vast array of books on the openings as well as some books on the middlegame and endgame. Many older books by Fine, Euwe, Nimzovich, and Pachman were reprinted. These older books were the ones older amateurs grew up on. With this information explosion, younger amateurs started to catch up with masters and experts in the play of openings. Those who purchased the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) spent time analyzing and memorizing columns. Adepts could quote names of openings and even entire columns of ECO if you gave them an ECO code like B99 or E82. Older players will recall trying to memorizing columns from an edition of Modern Chess Openings (MCO). Carrying books and notebooks to tournaments was a chore. Today’s players carry expensive laptops that they fret over, fearing they will lose all of their work if their computer is lost or stolen.
A good question to ask is if the play was better back in the Fischer days or is it better now. Players still have to study, understand what they are learning, commit it to memory, and reprocess when their games don’t go as well as expected. Reliance on a computer for analysis is a double edged sword. The focus seems to be more toward opening study than endgame study, though there are many more books and training manuals today on endgames than there ever were. On the amateur level it may be easier to make a comparison. Back in the day, amateurs tended to be weaker in the openings tryin to play MCO columns by rote, but more gritty in the endgame. Playing in static, positional games was more the norm. Today’s amateurs tend to play a more dynamic game, the result of study and the use of computer programs to practice with. Older amateurs have to stay with the times and pick up their game or get clobbered by the little, wee ones who have Stockfish, Houdini, and Fritz to play with and who peruse data files the way the old players used to read My System.
Interesting responses. I’m not surprised that endgame knowledge has gone down since the removal of adjournments. I know it’s my weakest area and one that I want to improve on.
Still, at my level, I think less than 20 percent of my games even get to the endgame. Either me or my opponent finds a tactical advantage well before that and just pours the pressure on whatever weakness is on the board.
I always thought Kasparov was good at grinding down a small advantage into the endgame. If I recall, for Kasparov’s Deep Blue match, the only 6 piece ending in the endgame table base was KQQ + KQQ. I suppose at the time, even that was a major task to compute.
I suppose technology has forced play, at the highest levels, to use which ever “school of chess” has the best chance of winning. Which I suspect is the one where defense is paramount and having to find a small advantage and just using that to grind your opponent down, if one can even have a small shot at avoiding a draw.
My own perception is that computers have had very little effect on grandmaster play, but have had a major effect on novice and intermediate play. When it comes to openings, all the computers are doing is executing the moves contained in their internally stored encyclopedia of chess openings, which was derived from human - not computer - play. It is still the humans who are expanding this encyclopedia of knowledge by exploring new paths of play. But, thanks to computers, it is much easier for novice and intermediate level players to get up to speed on this encyclopedia of knowledge. When I began coaching a kids’ chess team in 1989, for example, most of the kids I’d see at tournaments had never encountered Sicilean Defense. Nowadays, most have, and a major reason is that most computer chess programs regularly play the opening.
Bob
After reading this, “My own perception is that computers have had very little effect on grandmaster play…” I stopped reading and began to think of all the GM interviews I’ve read disputing the author’s viewpoint. There have been so many I could not figure out where to start looking for the appropriate interview, but one name stuck out, that of GM and former WC Vladimir Kramnik. I recalled several interviews he has given to Chess24 over the years and did a search on Startpage.com. ‘Lo & Behold’ one of the best interviews I recalled popped up first! In addition, one of the subtitles is, “A question of chess styles,” so it fits with this discussion. I urge you to read this interview, and every other interview with Kramnik, and naturally, GM Peter Svidler. Chess24 should be applauded for all of the wonderful interviews given since the inception of the website. Chessbase has printed many excellent interviews with older players decrying the changes taking place after the rise of the machine.
One of the questions asked is, “If you were offered the chance now to go back 50 years or so and play chess in the pre-computer era, would you?”
"You know, chess is now more interesting – it’s more complicated, dynamic and sharper. But that’s good for the spectators, while for the players it was all much easier back then. Therefore I’d probably agree without a second thought. (smiles)
I recall now my first Linares – 93. What a joy that was compared to current tournaments! Preparation for a game took an hour, two at most. Me and my then coach Vitaly Tseshkovsky would push the pieces around a bit, some small idea would occur to us – all was fine and I could go and play.
Now you spend two hours clicking through a variation with the computer and suddenly you realise it doesn’t work. And this one also doesn’t work. And that one. The end result is that preparation during a tournament takes up almost all the time between the games."
chess24.com/en/read/news/vladim … -52-not-40
From what I’ve read my own perception is that computers have had a drastic effect on GM play.
Respectfully,
Michael Bacon
+1
Yep
This is true even on the elementary, JR High, and HS level. I can remember in the 1990’s pulling up variations of opponents in books, and carrying a bag of key books with me to every tournament (as a coach.) This continued into the early 2000’s, although increasingly computers were important by then.
This past weekend when we needed to prepare our board 1 expert for the 2400 he was facing in the IHSA high school championship, we fired up ChessBase on the Surface Pro and pulled up a couple of key websites and also hit my TWIC database for information on the Poison Pawn Sicilian. Our expert drew in an ending due to time pressure - he had the winning chances.
We also prepared our Board 3 1600 for his 2100 opponent in a Benko using the same tools. He reached a winning position when his opponent badly overreached - unfortunately our player didn’t recognize it.
This brings back lots of tournament chess memories for me. I was an active, fairly successful (national master) tournament player during the period from about 1988-2000, and I would pack an extra suitcase for those trips with books and paper notebooks filled with my opening repertoire. In those days, I was generally playing 1.c4 as white and the Pirc/Modern or Sicilian against 1.e4 and the Modern or King’s Indian against 1.d4. There were at least 20 books I would expect to need for that repertoire, and a few others for offbeat lines.
Yes, today’s way of dealing with openings is much more concise (from a travel packing perspective), but I must admit I miss some of the books. I have 3 or 4 books on the Pirc, for example (which I have played since I was a pre-teen) that I cherish and still love to consult even in the computer era.
It is a little sad to see 8 and 9 year olds using computer programs to analyze their games rather than think for themselves. Time would be better spent analyzing with their opponents and interacting with other players instead of communing with their silicon deities. Yes, they will become better at chess but at a considerable cost in the development of social skills. We play because the play and the people we meet are important, not the results. I have seen too many friendless souls in chess who are more interested in what to play on move 17 in the Najdorf Sicilian than in making the chess world a better place. Unfortunately, schadenfreude is more common than empathy or the joy of play.
Nothing like having an engine rated 3200+ analyze a game played at around 1000.
Seriously though, I’d expect only the serious students to try and self analyze. It’s a skill that has to be learned and I’m not sure at what level self analyzing would be more helpful than using an engine. I’m currently using CT-ART and doing problems in the 1900 range, and only now starting to feel that self analyzing is beneficial.