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
|
