Source: www.siliconindia.com
Anand: “I did not have much contact with computers. The first chess database was published in 1987 with about 20,000 games. It was only after I became a Grandmaster that I obtained a computer. Today, I use a 12-million game database,” said Anand on his tryst with computers.
“The learning curve becomes good if one gets associated with computers at an early stage and it is impossible to become skilled in chess without a computer. It was possible then, but not now. Players like Bobby Fischer would not be able to compete with the present generation,” emphasized Anand on the computer’s role in learning chess.
Do you agree with Anand’s assessment?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Strongly disagree.
Youngsters aren’t the only people that can use computers and chess software.
You might consider that pre-computer players have the benefit of both unassisted and computer-aided analysis skills.
And
Not all chess games consist of memorized lines.
Anand is totally right. Not because Fischer was not great (He was!), but because of Fischer’s known aversion to work with computers. Anand saw this aversion first hand when he met Fischer in 2006. Hence the comment.
In 2006, Fischer was a tortured soul battling several personal demons. His mind was not what it was in his youth.
What would have post 1972 Fischer thought of using machines to help develop chess strength? Only GM Polgar and other who knew him personally may have insight in this matter.
Its a ridiculous argument…..if Fischer was here today at the same age….he’d also be using computers and probably dominate just as much.
What a bunch of blowhards.
Agree….the fastest tunning man wouldn’t have a chance against me and my Harley! lol
You’re right….it IS a ridiculous argument.
Mike Magnan
I assume he means that Fischer without computer assistance wouldn’t be able to compete with the worlds best players today that use computers, and to me this a definitely true. Fischer was a good chess player but he was no super human.
Interesting to note in October 2007, When GM Ian Rogers was asked if Fischer could still be able to beat Anand and Topalov , GM Rogers said Fischer would still be able to beat them !!!
Also of note – is Fischer was using Computers and Databases eg during his 92 match , he used NICBASE. And he was keenly interested in computers, and played the first SuperGM match vs a computer in 1977 !!
One last point of interest, was Fischer challenged Anand to a Match shortly before he died, this was reported by major news services but Anand well running scared !!!
I agree with a few of the comments:This is a ridiculous argument…let’s just put it this way…Fischer at his best would beat anyone-computer preparation or not! But in general…it is not easy to go without computer.
“Fischer at his best would beat anyone-computer preparation or not!”
Is that the historical or biblical Fischer you are talking about?
It depends on the point of argument from Anand’s view. If he is just trying to signify the importance of computers in this era of chess, he is most probably right. But, Anand must also understand, great players from this era might not have stood a chance against the likes of Fischer, Spassky, Petrosian, back in the 60s and 70s, without a computer.
It comes down to mostly one key element. The time it takes to create the opening tree for a 6 opening repertoire. Before computers it took an average of 8 years to complete it. Computers automate the building of the opening tree and shorten the time to 2 to 3 years. The 6 opening repertoire(3 w/White and 3 w/Black)is the Brick Wall to almost all of one’s opponents rated under 1900.
In analyzing and annotating one’s own games and in the search for TNs the computer is indispensable.
But, you must use your brain to verify the correctness of the computer’s analysis. Strategic and Tactical sight in OTB games is strictly a job for the brain alone.
Sharpening the OTB tactical sight is still a 5 page,9 diagrams, 3 min./position daily hands on exercise for the brain. No computers allowed here.
Given a Fischer vs. Anand match with both players in their prime, I would have to give the edge to Fischer based on just sheer will to win.
I too have challenged Anand to a match, but heard no response. He’s obviously scared to play me.
Anand refers to TopGM. Among them, who are great players anyway, the aid of computers is very important in developing the knowledge of variations and so on…
I agree also with Anon 1:08:00, but wouldn’t call the argument ridiculous, just anachronistic.
I would agree that a person like Fischer would not be able to compete in todays environment of the computer. Just look at the kids ages today who are getting GM norms.
Why does any topic about Fischer remind me of a religion?
Since we’re in the realm of Fantasy…If Fischer was say…..20 today..he’d be big time into computers…(Back in the 50’s 60’s he was really big into the technology of the day…..BOOKS! He’d even catch opponents in Soviet Analysis. (Remember that Reshevsky game?) I think the point is that if Anand lets say existed back then without computers….would he survive?…With the presence of Tal Petrosian Spassky Keres Botvinnik Fischer…etc..the list goes on…I agree with 01:08 Its a ridiculous argument. Like Comparing the fastest running man with a car.
But in my opinion….if fischer WAS 20 today….he’d lay em all to waste… and by the way..looking at top GM Play today AFTER the openings…seems they still make all those mistakes we used to read about…..a phase of the game fischer excelled at. think about that.
As of today, I respect Anand no more.
What a pathetic excuse for a World Champion, damning a legend who is no longer around to speak up for himself.
Good Point. Would Anand survive in the 50’s or 60’s or even the 70’s WITHOUT a computer?
It’s very surprising Anand said this…and quite disrespectful. I thought more of him than that. Oh well….only human I guess.
I like Anand but,But,BUt,BUT, Fischer’s rating at his prime was almost at Anands level, WITHOUT COMPUTERS and adjacent tools like the big-o databases of today!!. Can you just imagine the mind of Fischer applied to all this?. Oh Man! Not even Kasparov with his 1853 top rating would have surpassed him. I’m sorry Anand, I love you, Like you, have an enormous respect for you, I always thought you greately deserved to be a Chess Champ, you are my Hero but on this one you’re totally wrong. Did I mentioned Kasparov at his peak? man, I’m bad.
Anand just have to look at another legend still playing today and at his age still’s occasionally beating young GM’s and he’s old but still strong. Know who? yes, you got it! Kortchnoj! Anand, Do you know Kori’s rating? Are you Aware of it? He’s still playing at Fischer-Spassky’s 92 level! C’mon Champ you’re smarter than your own thoughts!
I don’t know if Anand’s quote was taken out of context or as is usual misreported. I always root for Anand but have always felt that Bobby was the greatest of them all.The Question is – could Anand or anyone else have matched Bobby in the pre computer days? the late 60’s for instance. Computers are here to stay and nothing can be done about it. Top chess players have fabulous memories and those who remember Rybka lines best win.Great credit must go to Fischer for his independent analysis (sans computers) and for successfully taking on the chess Gods from the former soviet union.Fischer was probably a social misfit but a chess genius nonpareil. If Anand truly said that, my esteem of the World Champ has just dropped down a wee notch.
Good question is would Anand survice the 50’s and 60’s without a computer or literature!?
Anand! If you truly disrespected Bobby then i’m going to take Vesko’s (or Kamski’s) side.
I totally disagree with Anand.what about this question:Do Anand ,Topalov,Kramnik ..etc (name any elite strondg Grandmaster you wish )have any chance against Fischer in 1972 with or without computer assistance ?!?
I now understood Karpovs statement “Anand is playing like a computer ;he is weaker than a decade ago “!!
P.S:Leave Fischer alone ;the man who became the youngest ever grandmaster without computer assistance cannot speak for himself anymore.
Rest in peace Bobby !
Medhat
The fact that Fischer continues to be a focus of argument after his death, bores to the fact the maybe or probably he is the greatest of them all!
King Bobby is dead! Long live Bobby!!
Susan! Pls gets your facts straight!
Here is an excerpt of Anand’s interview in the Business Standard. When asked how Bobby would fare against today’s computer fed brains he said” I grew up with Bobby Fischer’s games and I stand on the foundation that he has built. Fischer would not be able to play as he did in 1972. He would need time to adjust. Computer based strategising would help him too”
Thus Anand was just stating facts and not denigrating that chess god ‘Bobby Fischer”.
amar
Susan published the exact quote from Anand here:
http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/It_was_like_taking_a_kid_to_a_candy_store_Viswanathan_Anand-nid-50258.html
Here is what that website published:
“I did not have much contact with computers. The first chess database was published in 1987 with about 20,000 games. It was only after I became a Grandmaster that I obtained a computer. Today, I use a 12-million game database,” said Anand on his tryst with computers. “The learning curve becomes good if one gets associated with computers at an early stage and it is impossible to become skilled in chess without a computer. It was possible then, but not now. Players like Bobby Fischer would not be able to compete with the present generation,” emphasized Anand on the computer�s role in learning chess.
Amar,
That was the exact quote from http://www.siliconindia.com. I did not change anything.
There is no way of knowing if he was misquoted by the journalist.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
All the comments above miss the key point. The most important point about Fischer is his SUPPER ability to minimize number of mistakes during the game. All the best GMs today make much more mistakes during the game than Fischer did. Taking into account another Fischer’s SUPPER ability – “Fighting spirit” makes is virtually impossible imagine Fischer being bitten by today’s active GMs. None of the computer analyses have proven that Fischer’s openings where wrong or were significantly improved. By this reason I have big doubts that today’s best players could get any advantage against Fischer even at the opening stage.
“The most important point about Fischer is his SUPPER ability to minimize number of mistakes during the game. All the best GMs today make much more mistakes during the game than Fischer did.”
But Fischer didn’t have to play for 7 hours and more, did he? No, he played only 4 hours and then the game was adjourned. Then he spent the rest of the day out analysing the position, so that he was prepared for every reasonable continuation by his opponent.
And then people wonder why they made less mistakes “in the good old days”. If there would be adjournements todays GM’s wouldn’t just make less mistakes, they wouldn’t make any mistakes.
So please stop comparing apples and oranges. Fact is that if 1972 Fischer would be trtansported through time to this time, he would have hard times against average GM.
Everything else is in the domene of biblical Fischer.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/computers-arenext-linedefence/00/27/344306/
I like my machines cool and quiet,” he adds. A lot like him, but do they match the scorching pace of his inbuilt chess engine? Anand does not offer a direct answer, but affirms that older players like him were comfortable starting off without a processor plunking their every move. “Today, players like Anders Larsson or Sergei Karjakin cannot imagine life without computers.”
But wouldn’t somebody like Bobby Fischer find today’s computer-fortified players more than a match with his workmanlike approach to the game, and the delicate relationships between the pieces which he forged into all-time great moves? “Well, I grew up with Bobby Fischer’s games, and I stand on the foundation he has built,” Anand said. “But then, Fischer wouldn’t be able to play today the way he did in 1972. He would need time to adjust against players, including me. Computer-based strategising would help him too.”
“But Fischer didn’t have to play for 7 hours and more, did he?”
Today’s rules would give Fischer even more advantage since he could play non stop 7 or 77 hours with no problems.
well most of the machines are programed with the traditional theories in mind so they are clearlly flawed,anyway,your european ratings are based on how well you can score in a tournament not on how accurate they actually play so there is a bit a weakness in all this. I was watching s movie called Dances with wolves and in it the indian says “he left because you were coming” this reminded me of Fischer and Vishy , so as a race of people its nice to see in this last match we finally went beyound bobby.
I quite agree with Anand’s assessment and I think we all should congratulate him for speaking so openly about the role of computers is today’s chess. He’s definitely the first WC to do it in such a clear way. Yes, others have mentioned computer use and importance before but I don’t remember anybody else saying “…it is impossible to become skilled in chess without a computer”.
Another important recommendation from Anand is that “one gets associated with computers at an early stage”. The way I understand this message is that one shouldn’t wait to become at least a master to start using computers. If that’s the case the WC implies that our current well established methods of teaching needs to be revisited.
I think by comparing Fischer and today’s generation of players Anand is just telling us: “Chess is already NOT the good old game we knew in 20th century. Get used to it.”
Wouldn’t Fischer have adapted?
Even Korchnoi has been able to adapt though read somewhere about some difficulty against younger more computer savvy opponents.
Anyway, did the article really say Fischer “would not stand a chance”?
Analogy: the young folk maybe able to sing “hallelujah” but not like Jeff Buckley.
“Anonymous said…
“The most important point about Fischer is his SUPPER ability to minimize number of mistakes during the game. All the best GMs today make much more mistakes during the game than Fischer did.”
But Fischer didn’t have to play for 7 hours and more, did he? No, he played only 4 hours and then the game was adjourned. Then he spent the rest of the day out analysing the position, so that he was prepared for every reasonable continuation by his opponent.
And then people wonder why they made less mistakes “in the good old days”. If there would be adjournements todays GM’s wouldn’t just make less mistakes, they wouldn’t make any mistakes.
So please stop comparing apples and oranges. Fact is that if 1972 Fischer would be trtansported through time to this time, he would have hard times against average GM.
Everything else is in the domene of biblical Fischer.
Friday, December 26, 2008 3:53:00 PM CST”
“Anonymous said…
“But Fischer didn’t have to play for 7 hours and more, did he?”
Today’s rules would give Fischer even more advantage since he could play non stop 7 or 77 hours with no problems.
Friday, December 26, 2008 4:23:00 PM CST”
We have to remember that Fischer retired in the prime of his youth (29 years old). Other Masters, like Botvinnik, Korchnoi and others, played unto their old age.
I believe Fischer would have done well with computers, but yes, the game is different now.
I have been retired from chess for 30 years, and it is a different ballgame! I don’t know if I will ever get used to the “new” chess….
But here is a funny anecdote by Tal….
On page 236 of his book “My Great Predecessors, Part IV”, Kasparov quotes Tal, about Fischer in the Zurich 1959 tournament:
” Already in Zurich it was not easy playing the 16-year-old Fischer. His incredible will-to-win and significantly improved standard of play made him a dangerous opponent for any participant. Fischer did not like easy draws and he would battle until the chess material was completely exhausted.
In his game with the oldest participant, the Hungarian Grandmaster Gideon Barcza, Fischer did not have any advantage, but, not wishing to let his opponent off with a draw, he played on to the 103rd move. The game was adjourned three times, the players covered two score-sheets, but even after only the kings were left on the board, Fischer made a further two moves!. Draw! Staggered by such a fanatical onslaught, Barcza could hardly get up from his chair, but Robert said as though nothing had happened:
“Let’s have a look at the game from the beginning. I’m sure I could have played better at some point!”
And then Barcza implored him:
“Look, I have a wife and children. Who will feed them in the event of my untimely death!”
Barcza was 51 years old at the time, against Fischer, who was only 16!
Kamalakanta
It’s easy to say things about a dead man. Vishy should be more sensitive to these matters! He is World Champion for Krishna’s sake!
Too bad we will never get a chance to find out.
To all computer-aided chess players, SHUT-UP!!!
As if you are all proud winning games with the help of a computer. What if games were not analyzed by computer nowadays? You’re ALL be a 2500 player, no matter what.
Fischer is/was the BEST.
You better ask Short the handle of KING FISCHER. How he was beaten using new theoretical openings.
FISCHER 6 – TAIMANOV 0
FISCHER 6 – LARSEN 0
FISCHER 6 – ANAND 0
How come Anand came out last in Bilbao?
Computer failure???
With or without computer, FISCHER’S BRAIN was designed for CHESS.
OPening – Perfect
Middle Game – Perfect
End Game – Perfect
WHAT MORE CAN YOU ASK FOR!!
FISCHER RULE!!!!!!!!!
After reading everyone’s thoughts on this matter I have to disagree with Anand statement. I believe Fischer’s chess knowledge was incredible as Kasparov’s with computers was. As good as Anand is I still do not think his games are as well played as Kasparov or Fischer games were. I think Magnus will surpass Anand/Topalov/Kramnik chess wall of today in the next two years. He will be on the level of Kasparov or Fischer and maybe even surpass thanx to computers!
Fischer’s top rating was at the same level than the top ratings of today. But because of the rating inflation, the same rating today doesn’t mean the player is as strong. And Fischer did it without computer help!
As long as we’re Quoting people…”It is impossible to become a skilled player without computers” seems to me to be a little weird.
I mean….does that mean all the players pre 1980 were not skilled?
Imagine all those chess gods that erupted when ATARI came on the scene….thanks ATARI yep….Computers are the reason I guess…. Maybe Computers are also the reason we have inflated ratings these days….C’mon….this is a stupid argument. Today….Fischer…at the same age he was in 72 would still kill em all. He’d just have a huge database…(HE did then too…it was in print…remember that?)
How very naive can you be Mr. Anand.
How many elite players of today do you know who could predict the outcome of the game in exactly the same number of moves, i.e. Fischer announced beforehand that he will defeat Najdorf in 24 moves in his pet Sicilian Najdorf.
How Fischer defeated Spassky in a drawn position in 1972..(chessgames.com)? How Fischer think a full 1 hour in the 60th move and Spassky resigned (74 moves).
Remember: Chess is a thinking mind game. Don’t ever tainted this beautiful game by saying it has been defeated by computer(s). It’s tantamount to saying that we as chessplayers should rely more and more with it and use our MIND less. As a World Champion you should practically be ashamed of yourself. Don’t brag about your database as if you are practically out of range without them.
I salute TOPALOV, RADJABOV, TIMMAN, SHORT, ADAMS, LJUBOJEVIC, THE LOVELY SOHIA P., AND EVEN KARPOV; for not downgrading the greatness of FISCHER.
FISCHER is/was FISCHER with or without computer(s).
…”would not stand A chance..”
Meaning not even once could he beat these present-day ‘computer-aided chessplayers!!!’
Something is wrong somewhere. The radiation from your computer has tainted your mind thinking otherwise, Mr. Anand.
GO TOPALOV!!! GO KAMSKY!!!
MORE POWER SUSAN POLGAR!!!
How would Anand fancy a chance against Fischer in Chess960? Any comments on that by Mr. Anand?