Grandmaster Nigel Davies (England) exclusively for Pogonina.com

There was a time when chess was a game in which players used their
experience and intuition to figure out the moves but over the years things
have changed. First of all came 'opening theory' by which the opening moves
of strong players could be systematically collected and then copied. More
recently the changes have accelerated with the computerization of our
ancient game.
 

The impact has been massive. Anyone who wishes to play in a tournament must
know something about the openings with the demands rising exponentially as
you rise up the rating scale. This can be a hugely time consuming and not
particularly pleasant job which then catapults the game through the early
stages and into some middle game. And then there is the aspect of computer
assisted cheating.
 

Incidents, accusations and suspicions of using computers to cheat are
entirely destructive to the game. The atmosphere that is being created is
just awful, who really wants to participate in an event in which you can be
searched as you enter the room? And which sponsor would want to risk the
possibility of having their name mentioned alongside the word 'cheating'?
Something needs to be done, but what?
 

There have been various piecemeal suggestions about how to address these
matters via tougher regulation, but what about taking a step back to
consider the big picture. If our game has been damaged by a stomping from
electronic jack boots, what can we do to reclaim its original spirit? I
believe that one answer may lie in creating new versions which whilst
retaining its original spirit will be more hostile to computers. Fischer
960? Capablanca chess? Well both Bobby Fischer and Jose Raul Capablanca were
wonderful players but that didn't make them game designers or give them a
knowledge of how computers work.
 

In rethinking our board layout the first major problem is to address 'brute
force'. This approach of having computers use massive calculation to 'play'
chess has become ever more effective as processing power has increased. Yet
it doesn't work so well on Go or Shogi.
 

Why is that? Well the main factor is the greater number of possibilities in
Shogi and Go, partly due to board size and partly due to having less mobile
pieces. This considerably reduces the number and length of forcing lines
which lead to clear outcomes, thus making them difficult to crack via 'brute
force' approaches.
 

So in tweaking chess to make it 'brute force' hostile we basically need a
bigger board but shouldn't add powerful pieces which would limit the effect
and make it alien to human players. My own suggestion would be to make the
board 10x10 at first (this leads to more than a 50% increase in terrain) and
add a pair of knights to both sides on b1, i1, b10 and i10. I'd also rescind
the double square pawn advance to delay conflict between the two sides and
make the opening stages more Shogi-like.
 

Now I know that people would claim that this would 'destroy the game' but
frankly, due to computers, I don't think it's in great shape as it is.
Others may say that it's hopeless because computers will 'catch up' anyway.
But these arguments are easily addressed.
 

First of all there's also no reason to outlaw the current version, let's
have the market decide. There are numerous versions of both Go and Shogi out
there besides the official computer hostile forms. Why are we chess players
so prudish about playing a version with some minor adjustments and
reclaiming it from the silicon beasts?
 

With regard to computers 'catching up' then why would we then need to be a
sitting target? In one of my all time favourite films, the 1975 version of
Rollerball, rule changes were just part of the game. So we could add another
couple of squares and put four bishops on next time sending the programmers
and their monsters back to the drawing board.
 

So let's be willing to experiment with other forms and not necessarily
regard the current version as being something that is set in stone. Perhaps
one or two will emerge as major rivals and then finally take over when
enough people realise that the burden of 'preparation' and stench of
cheating just isn't necessary.
 

(C) Nigel Davies

Disclaimer: this article expresses the personal views of the author that may not be shared
by the  editors of Pogonina.com   

Comments (4)

Comments (1)

There are two main types of opening preparation: having a narrow repertoire and a wide repertoire. In the first case you have a single response to the main moves by White (i.e. one opening against 1.e4, one against 1.d4, etc.). The pros of such approach are that you know your lines well and have a vast experience playing them. The cons: it’s very easy to prepare for a game against you; it’s hard to tune your tournament strategy in accordance with your performance. E.g. you may be playing a solid opening for Black, which doesn’t help to win a decisive game at all.
 

A wide repertoire implies having a few lines up your sleeve (e.g. being able to play the KID, Gruenfeld and the Nimzoindian against 1.d4). Pros: flexible tournament strategy; opponents will have a hard time preparing. Cons: not enough experience; necessity to memorize enormous amounts of lines. The third approach is a hybrid of the first two: when you have one (or more) well-analyzed openings and can also choose something different in special cases. Pros: surprise effect. Cons: if you decide to improvise and play an opening from scratch, your knowledge of the system will likely be superficial, thus increasing the probability of making a mistake (or several!).

When choosing an opening for the game we should try to predict our opponent’s intentions, consider the tournament situation and find breaches in his preparation. If you know a line that more or less perfectly suits your goals, you can go ahead and play it. However, in the real world it often seems that something is wrong about your prep. Then you have to think of a different way. As a case study, let’s consider my recent game against ex-Russian chess champion GM Sergey Volkov.
 

I had Black against him in round 4 of the Polugaevsky Memorial-2011. At this point I had 2.5/3, so my options weren’t limited to playing for a win only. By reviewing my opponent’s games, I discovered that against my main opening vs 1.d4, the Nimzovitch defense, he virtually always opts for a complicated line with 4.f3. He has a lot of experience treating those positions, while I can’t boast the same. However, most of his opponents preferred 4…d5 to “my” move – 4…0-0. At first I was toying with the idea of employing my previous favorite – the Benko gambit. Then I thought that I don’t play it too often myself, and the opponent will probably prepare against it anyway, so it won’t be much of a surprise factor. So, I decided to settle for the Nimzovitch defense and spent quite a lot of time analyzing an interesting line I found (later named by French GM Vladislav Tkachiev “novelty of the week in the world”). The advantage of this approach was that my opponent had never faced this idea before. Also, I reviewed the main variations thoroughly while preparing. The drawbacks were that in some variations a dangerous position could occur, and I wasn’t sure I would be able to memorize all the prep well enough. Anyway, I knew that most experienced chess players try to avoid main lines when caught off guard, since they are scared of having to play against an opponent who has prepared the variation with a chess engine. Therefore, the risk was justified. 

 

Comments (3)

Be first to comment this article

Monday, August 08, 2011

PRESS RELEASE

The Federation Internationale des Echecs is pleased to announce that following the evaluation of the bids for the World Chess Championship Match 2012 and the recommendations by the World Championship and Olympiad Commission, it has awarded the organization of the match to the Russian Chess Federation.

The match will be held in May 2012 in Moscow, Russia and offers the World Champion Vishwanthanan Anand from India, and the Challenger Boris Gelfand from Israel, a prize fund of 2,550,000 US dollars.

FIDE thanked the Russian Chess Federation for its winning bid and will work together with the RCF to ensure that the match is organized under the best conditions for both players.

The FIDE President, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov expressed his gratitude also to the All India Chess Federation who worked very hard to put in a very competitive bid with the support of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

In view of the commitment shown by the AICF and the appreciation of FIDE towards the development of chess in India, the AICF would be given a first option of three months following the match in Moscow, to make a proposal for the organization of the World Chess Championship Match 2013.

FIDE is further pleased to announce that the Women’s World Chess Championship Match between Women World Champion Hou Yifan from China and the Challenger Humpy Koneru from India, will be held in Tirana, Albania in November 2011 for a prize fund of 200,000 euros.

Be first to comment this article

Comments (1)

Be first to comment this article

Comments (4)

Comments (1)