It’s Saturday Open Forum. Fabiano Caruana won Hogeschool Zeeland with a 2715 performance. This sparks a debate about American chess versus European chess. Can a player reach his / her true potential by playing mainly in the United States? What is your take?
Rybka defeated GM Joel Benjamin in a handicap match. Can any human stop the machine anymore?
The World Championship in Mexico City (http://www.chessmexico.com/) is only about a month away. Are you looking forward to seeing Anand and Kramnik fighting it out for the World Championship crown? Who do you think will win it all?
What would you like to discuss this week? The forum is yours!
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Rybka rules. No human can survive.
Why need to ‘stop the machine’ !?
Just face it. They are fast calculators.
much faster than humans.
Not since Paul Morphy’s challenge has anyone been able to do it except Rybka!
Kramnik should prevail in tournament next month.
Europe is the place to go to play and get better in chess.
Without trainers to assist him Nakumara will never reach the heights he could have as Carlsen is doing.
“Grandmasters have an intuitive memory for thousands of chess position patterns, that is what makes them so strong and fast.”
That word ‘pattern’ is heavily used in describing grandmaster expertise. But aside from a few obvious patterns, such as…
(A) pawn structures per openings
(B) attacking a fianchetto castled king structure
(C) endgame rules
…none of my numerous chess books ever describe any specific example of any ‘pattern’.
Susan, can you give us 1-2 examples of learned chess ‘patterns’ you recognize and utilize in your middle games?
About american chess:
I think that the chess in USA has not good health…I play with a lot of american players in ICC and their average rating is about 1500: it is very strange to play with an expert or somebody rated over 2100.
I have calculated than the average european player is 1800,300 points stronger.
But as always I can do mistakes… well let us start with a few numbers,the numbers of my own local federation,the most important in Spain:Catalonia
We are 7,000 players.With my rating 2161 I can find 600 players better than me and they give me big problems in each championship… 250 of them are masters.
What type of training can have a lonely Grand Master in USA if the next one is 500 miles away?to play against people rated 300 or 400 points less is a real training or are they just wasting a morning for a couple of dollards?
About the computers in chess:
Sorry Susan the time of human victories against the computers are over.Only the GM Smirin gave me some hopes for a while in 2002,but that is over.As you wrote in you own books chess is mainly tactics and computers excell in them.
But we have other problem now: checkers was solved two weeks ago.They have just 500.000.000.000.000.000.000(one five and 20 zeros) of posibilities and the canadian scientist needed 19 years of study.For now it is not a problem,because 20 o 30 zeros more(total 50 zeros) defend us and then we are speaking about really BIG NUMBERS and with the current technology we are safe
But the next computers revolution, that means nanotechnology or atomic engineering will give the computers a real chance…but it is a huge progress and I will not see it,maybe your children can do that.
Finally I wish to share a website with a lot of chess pics,since 1283 to the modern years.It is a french site:
http://www.jmrw.com/Chess/Tableau_echecs/
Europeans are just more intelligent than Americans. Like Susan herself.
Naka vs Rybka?!? Are you kidding??
Why?
He isn’t a top class GM. He will get beaten 6-0 by Rubka. For sure!
About the possible match Nakamura-Rybka:
I will not put a dollard in it.Nakamura has not real chances!
A tactical player can be destroyed 6-0 for Rybka.That is the reality.
The chess programmers are not genius.Many of them have the help of strong grand masters…but everyone one can do a program:
Years ago I read a good book of the IM David Levy and I have my OWN CHESS PROGRAM.Ok,it is not a good one,but its rating is about 1850 and I did it five years ago.
Today,the network is full of computers chess associations and you can know how to do a program better than my program in a couple of weeks.It is not a difficult problem.
i agree with jose. Of course the really good engines like rybka have some clever algorhythms behind it, and some really genius programming!
But the computers’ main strength is their capability to calculate that much and fast.
As kasparov called it: “Quality through quantity!”
I suppose the computer vs. human debate will rage on, but here is the deal. I can hop in my car and out run any marathon runner in very short order. If the point is going from A to B, it is no contest. Chess is similar to this. The computer can calculate and draw upon it’s memory perfectly. Humans don’t possess such perfection. Basically the computer “touches” the pieces every time it moves due to this perfect memory.
Put to rest the Paul Bunion vs the Chainsaw and realize that the game is only meaningful when a human plays a human. Computers cannot feel good when they win a tourney, or sad when they loose-these calculators are just inanimate lumps. So they can beat GMs now. Eventually all personal human achievement will be eclipsed by computers save one-creativity.
If anything, the computer has aided an improvement in chess play, assisting in analysis and researching game databases. You’d never catch me watching with rapt attention a contest between machines. I’d rather watch paint dry. To watch the triumph of human discovery, victory, genius and loss is what makes this or any game worth while.
As for America’s chess culture, yes, it is wanting. Europeans are no smarter than their American counterparts. The culture in those counties simply admire the sport more. Stateside, we like our baseball, we produce better players, because it is the national pastime. In Canada, every kid straps on skates as soon as they walk and they produce some of the very best hockey players. There is less incentive to achieve in chess in the USA.
In recent years the USCF has had a hand in hampering progress along these lines. Fischer-for a brief time-brought it to the fore and America got on board. The number of registered players sky rocketed. Now, Americans, with their short attention spans, have moved on to other things. Will Fabiano did go abroad to improve-eschewing school as well-I don’t think this is necessary for the right motivated soul. American or otherwise. If you “get” chess and have the talent, aptitude and time, who knows?
Anybody read and got comments on these books:
Karolyi ‘Judit Polgar’,
Forbes ‘The Polgar Sisters’,
Forbes ‘The Polgar Sisters: Training or Genius?’ – not sure if this is the same book.
Thanks
“My brain is better than Rybka’s six days a week”
“My brain is better than Rybka’s six days a week”
“My brain is better than Rybka’s six days a week”
“My brain is better than Rybka’s six days a week”
— HIKARU NAKAMURA
“…none of my numerous chess books ever describe any specific example of any ‘pattern’.”
I see you are having some trouble with the english language. Your books have most assuredly described patterns in chess unless they told you what to do for every random position possible.
If you spot a pattern between two positions then you can go through similar logic/sequence of moves each time. A lot of this is subconscious… a pattern would be if you kept getting your queen trapped a certain way. A simple tactical pattern would be where you spotted your queen and knight up close to the opponent’s king and rook, and looked for that way you sacrifice the queen and mate the trapped king with your knight.
I assume I am not the only one surprised that ‘Improving the USCF’ has not yet been suggested as a topic this week.
I don’t know whether the Polgar slate is winning with grace or losing with dignity right now: in fact, it doesn’t matter.
I think this is the moment to congratulate Bill Goichberg on being appointed USCF President, and to wish his Executive Board well in its efforts to improve the prospects of the USCF.
All in favour say “Aye!”
Nakamura is a stupid kid if he thinks that he will prevail against the machine Rybka.Maybe his positional play can be better that its play but NOTHING can calculate so fast as the computer and if he is saying something like that is just because he has not idea about programming.
The next is real,believe it or not…sorry if I am not very good with the dates.
I remember a Kasparov game against one of the programs many years ago.He had a difficult game and suddenly he sacrified two pawns for attack.All the masters in that chat(and that includes two very knowed Grand masters)said that the victory was absolutely sure for him.And I,against all of them, said” He will lose,I am absolute sure”
Why?
In a normal game if the machine needs to calculate two moves in a game where nothing is happening then needs to analise 34x34x34x34 moves
It means the positional game is harder for them and they have less deep.
But if you sacrifice two pawns,then maybe the good lines can be just 5.And 5x5x5x5 is really smaller than 34x34x34x34.
With his sacrifice Kasparov increased the machine force in hundreds of points and the game was so complex that I was sure:if there is only one chance,the computer will see it.
And it was like really happened.He lost.
The good thing is Kasparov was not so idiot forever.Years later,against other machine,in a endgame with a lot of pieces(without queens) he had to choose between the usual Ke2 and the not very logical 0-0.He thought that Ke2 was the good move against humans,but maybe the machine can gave him problems in the center with all that pieces and he did 0-0 and won in anycase with his perfect endgame.Since the 0-0 I am absolutely sure that he understand now the computers very well!
I expected some comments and follow-up on the two US teams that just played on the Olympiad and outdid themselves, by placing better than the seed. Very unfortunately, other topics were more interesting to all.
Some of us just want the subtle pleasure of watching GM Nakamura getting his towering ego thoroughly destroyed.
“My brain is better than Rybka six days of the week”
Six games, no handicaps, 90 minutes each (or perhaps even classical tournement time controls if all is agreable). Rybka on fast hardware. $20,000 prize fund.
“My brain is better than Rybka six days of the week”
Prove it, Naka.
Nakamura’s claim may simply be youthful boasting(he is still a teen after all), but put this to rest. Who cares? A car can beat a runner, a boat can beat a swimmer and so on.
If anything, this confirms that Chess is a sport as a machine can do it better than a human can.
Nakamura is a great player of the game, and gets credit for it. I’m sure he’s had his ego handed to him plenty of times. Just think of all those upsets.
When you climb that high, it seems everyone wants to take a pot shot at you. Rybka is a good chess engine-so what.
Anonymous 5:31PM –
2007 Susan Polgar National Open
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/02/full-scholarship-to-texas.html
Congrats to Victoria Bailey
Susan Polgar World Open for Girls
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/06/scholarship-recipients-to-texas-tech.html
I’m not sure who the three girls are but here are the results page:
http://www.lvchessfestival.com/results/?section=GirlsOpn
I would assume two of the three are Rebecca Lelko and Janice Chen.
I hope this helps.
“My brain is better than Rybka’s six days a week”
I agree 100% with Nakamura. This is so obvious everyone seems to look past it. It is trivial.
If you do not understand the statement then that is your problem. But Nakamura is 100% correct. He has to be. My brain is better also.
I suggest the person here who is trying to riducule Nakamura had better stop making a fool of himself.
Computers killed adjourned games. There is no adjournes games anymore because the computers, the Rybkas, Fritzes and Juniors,etc.
Maybe we lost something with this. ( or not ? )
Victor: thanks for additional information …
http://polgargirls.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html has a picture of Sylvia Yang
http://www.lvchessfestival.com/results/?section=GirlsOpn from you shows Sylvia Yang 1st in the ‘combined’ Open/Under_14s
I assume she got one of the Scholarships but am not sure if she is one of the three girls in the picture at
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/06/scholarship-recipients-to-texas-tech.html
Anyway, looks like there were three TTU Scholarships awarded at the 2007 SP World Open for Girls.
Going back to the 2nd (2007) SP National Open for Girls, and http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/02/full-scholarship-to-texas.html
Should we assume that the Texas A&M Scholarship was the only one to be awarded here: no 1-2-3 this time?
Interestingly, Victoria Bailey had already been awarded a TTU Scholarship in February 2006, http://news.ttu.edu/browse/newsRelease/963
I wonder which, if any, she will take!
There’s no mention of Sylvia Yang, Rebecca Lelko or Janice Chen on the TTU News site, or of any students actually taking up these scholarships yet, but SP could build a strong TTU team through these scholarships. No idea how attractive TTU is as a University.
Above, somebody mentions patterns. Many chess patterns are common… but I agree that the number of “thousands” of patterns seems puzzling. Doesn’t the commentary in the “My Brilliant Brain” film mention even “some 100,000 patterns” at one point?
Maybe the distinction between (opening) moves, specific positions, and patterns is not always clear. I can imagine, or acutally I cannot 🙂 that Grandmasters know thousands of opening moves, and also remember many complete games, which makes a big number of positions in total.
But I think that patterns, or “chunks” are something different and more general(?) – Anyway, I was watching that film, or parts of it, with great delight! It has inspired me to trust my intuiton more.
If there is anything what I should critizise about that documentation, it is (assuming that I didn’t miss other parts of it which cover that point better): The role of concrete, and and top level, very deep calculation was not mentioned clear enough, or not at all. If non-chess players see that, they may get the impression that GM chess is played entirely from memory. But patterns are only one important factor and precise calculation of variations is another (and endgame knowledge is another, maybe there are more to mention).
If we consider the two elements patterns and calculation (only), we find that the balance, or share of them both is very different in the methodic profile of a human GM or of a strong chess program (I ignore the opening library here but I mean the calculating engine).
– just a comment on the “my brilliant brain” documentury and the subject of , “can a genius be made?, or does a genius have to be born?”
susan and her sisters abilities are not just the result of playing a lot of chess at a young age, clearly the genetic component has been grosly understated in this documentury.
Mozart didint become a genius simply becouse he practised more at a younger age.
we are all born with a different genetic potential that can be relised through hard work, but not every one that goes to the gym can become arnold swartzenegger and not everyone who plays chess can become susan polgar.
i have princess of chess with judit n i must tell u very interesting aggressive playing by judit xcellent book
Man can always beat Rybka in kickboxing.
I have read a lot about studies done on GM’s , IM’s and lower and it appears the theory of ‘chunks’ of data is the prevalent one at the moment. The best way to explain this vs. position’s memorized is how your chess database recognizes positions which can be reached by different move orders. Kasaparov in one of his DVD’s mentioned this same idea with different words but the conclusion is the same, he has a tremendous amount of stored data chunks which he immediately retrieves while explaining chess positions. This guides him in chess. The way every chess player has this same knowledge is by playing chess, playing over GM games, tactic exercises, endgame problems, etc. The more knowledge we accumalte the better decision making algorithm we shall have when playing a game of chess. Fischer even remembered all of his blitz games he played and games he saw others play! I am sure we have all played a game where without concrete calculation our intuition guided us to make a sacrifice or attack the king because we felt it was the right thing to do. Fascinating subject indeed! As far as Nakumara goes, I agree with the person who stated we all have a ‘brain’ while the programs do not! Nevertheless, Calculating prowress of chess engines is phenomenal! Thanx for the ches art pictures! I am still looking at them.
anonymous @ 6:48 PM — “The Polgar Sisters” (“training or genius” is the subtitle) by Cathy Forbes is terrible. It’s unflattering to the Polgars for reasons that come across as jealousy more than anything else. I haven’t read Karolyi’s book.
Tibor Karolyi’s book is very good! It also has some games and all 🙂
And an amazing beutiful picture of Judit on the cover! 😎
Not to insult anyone, European or American, but chess is simply not as popular in America as it is in Europe. Simply look at the number of major tournaments. This is probably because, with rare exception (Fischer), spectators don’t care to watch chess in America, so it doesn’t attract sponsors (hopefully Susan and Paul will improve this in their new positions on the USCF board) as well as it does in Europe.
And, in America, where there is little money for a sport or business in which excelling at requires a lot of time and effort (such as to become a GM) many that could excel in chess instead pursue other more profitable interests and businesses (more reliable income).
This is not to imply that Europeans foolishly waste time playing chess, merely that most people in American culture value different leisure-time activities as-well-as professional sports thyan Europeans do.
Susan:
What level do you think a player could reach if he strictly only studied tactics, with no endgame knowledge and no opening/positional knowledge. Thanks
http://www.chess-predeal.com/ especially http://www.chess-predeal.com/live-chess-games.asp may be worth a visit, some Championships and some Opens in progress; http://www.sahclub.ro/ especially http://www.sahclub.ro/toma/070811live/ also
Anonymous Said
“As for America’s chess culture, yes, it is wanting. Europeans are no smarter than their American counterparts. The culture in those counties simply admire the sport more. Stateside, we like our baseball, we produce better players, because it is the national pastime. In Canada, every kid straps on skates as soon as they walk and they produce some of the very best hockey players. There is less incentive to achieve in chess in the USA. “
This is similar to Australia. We have our many different forms of sport to aspire to. Chess is not one of them. In Australia Chess is not recognised as a sport so it doesnt get any funding where other sports might. Australia has two GM’s (one of which recently retired – GM Ian Rogers). It is very rare for an Australian to get an IM or GM Norm in Australia. Generally the only two tournaments where a person might get a norm is the Australian Open (still Highly unlikely). Or the New Sydney International Open which had its inaugural tournament this year and will be happening next year.
I do not think it is the case of chessplayers getting better overseas but chessplayers playing a better array of competition overseas and thence more chances of getting that norm. How often do American players get to play for an IM or GM norm?
Europe is the Traditional place for lots of norm producing chess tournaments but how about Asia? Asia is fast building as a possible Norm producing area. Which is handy for Australians.
Finally, One person who did get a GM norm from an Australian championship is IM David Smerdon. IM Smerdon recently scored his final GM norm in Europe. All he has to do now is get his rating above the required benchmark and he has his Title. Good Luck Smurf!
God…the thing can play chess…great. But it can’t even smell a flower….why is this so important?
Greetings,
On the subject of Nature (Belief in Innate gift) vs. Nurture (Strong belief in hard work);
I have come across both personality traits, and I have to say my circle of friends stem from those who believe in hard work ethics; For it makes me push myself to the limit in anything I do and achieve tasks I did not think I was capable of, These hard working friends of mine tend to be very positive and have that ‘anything is possible’ mentality which of course I adore, for we help each other achieve the VERY BEST POTENTIAL in any OBJECTIVE any of us are interested in.
I find those who believe in ‘nature giving talent’ tend to be negative and patronizing, they play the excuse card when things don’t go well for them, they also tend to feel to sorry for themselves, I also find they tend to be more jealous characters and use subtle ways to try to discourage those who strive to succeed. Quite frankly these caricature characters suffer from FEAR!!! , I avoid them like the Plague.
My Regards
King.
Both nature and nurture play a part. As well, chess shows that if you want to be good at something during your life the younger you are starting out the better. It shows the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” works in humans too, at least you will have a little more trouble doing so (which you can overcome). I think sometimes humans think they can do anything as well as anyone else if they are given a bit of time. Fortunately or unfortunately, it’s not true. Genetics always play a part in everything as well.
Garry Kasparov once said on CNN that one of his favourite things about chess is that no matter what happened in the past, both sides start out exactly fairly.
For things like education, work, sports, knowledge you can blame other physical things. It can always be someone else’s fault, but in chess you have to answer to yourself.
Of course he’s not trying to say: “I’m better than you and you have to accept it”. What he meant is that chess just proves that there is a limit to how good you can do in anything.
King, I think you will find that Darwin believed in ‘nature giving talent’ and articulated it in his ‘Evolution of the Species’.
If you don’t believe the same, try handling your knife and fork without an opposing thumb.
I certainly believe in inherited characteristics – they’re in our genes – and that competence is a function of nature, nurture and context.
To that extent, I believe that many would not have survived the Polgar focus on chess, and that the Polgar sisters would not necessarily have been as successful in another random field, e.g. mathematics, fine art, music, ballet or sport.
When Deep Blue beat Kasparov it was news, but now technology has improved so much it’s no longer news that Rybka can kick a Grandmaster’s butt. It doesn’t change how I feel about those who excel at the upper levels of chess. I’d rather know of the human aspect that was behind a brilliant combination or a horrible blunder. The computer does not have emotions, so there is no heart and soul in the accomplishments of a chess machine.
Watching a youngster like Fabiano move up through the ranks and achieve success at his age is far more satisfying then seeing a the latest and greatest chess machine wreck havoc over the chess board.
I remember Fabiano traveling up from NYC to play in the scholastic tournaments I ran in Westchester County and Connecticut. He’d come in with his lucky Beanie Baby and place it on the table next to him. He’d be playing kids twice his age and size who might have been snickering about the Beanie, but at the end he would have the last laugh.
I remember talking to his dad at the World Open the summer before they went to Italy. He wanted Fabiano to experience the European chess scene and be exposed to his family roots. At the time I thought it would just be for a year or two, and I had no idea how much talent he really had.
I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to reproduce the European chess scene and culture here in the US. There is much about European culture in general that doesn’t play here in the USA. Could we have all the grandmaster tournaments that are so common in Europe? Will our future stars have the opportunities here, or will they have to take Fabiano’s route and relocate abroad?
I wish I had a good answer to those questions. Time will tell.
Some comments paint a picture of the popularity of chess in Europe. Unfortunately, I am afraid chess is not at all popular in Europe by genenal standards. The regular big Grandmaster tournaments don’t make a big difference… the are for the usual small ‘specialist’ audience only. The do not exist in mass media, maybe with the exception of very short reports in local news.
I cannot tell how the general chess popularity situation is in the countries of Eastern Europe, where often a chess tradition from the soviet ages will have remained. If we compare ‘chess to chess’, it’s certainly bigger there, but I doubt if it is really popular in a general scale, even there.
In this context, the FIDE statistics about titled players are interesting.
http://www.fide.com/ratings/topfed.phtml
I didn’t look up the total population numbers now, but relative to that, Serbia probably has the highest ratio: 470 titled players. Croatia is a small country and has 206.
A statistic ‘Titled players in percent per population’ would be interesting.
Of course American chess will soon equal Europe! WE HAVE SUSAN POLGAR!!
Rybka is simply the best. There should be no odds games. If a human cannot defeat it at regular time controls, then the rest is just a “chess variant.”
Playing odds games and obtaining a draw against Rybka is like outrunning a horse with a severly injured leg!!
Of course the human would do better in such a race.
Why praise a GM that draws a game against a program that has been, in effect, “crippled” (or, not allowed to perform at peak performance) on purpose?
It isn’t right, in my opinion.
In regards to the upcoming WCC in Mexico City…may the best player win! I have no favorite. I just hope it isn’t tainted with scandal as chess has been hurt enough with cheating allegations lately.
America will soon (within, say 10 years) equal Europe with native-born chess GM’s. After all, we have Susan Polgar!!!:)
I really wish, though, the “US vs Europe” mentality would go away. Let us just enjoy chess.