Live data from Hacker News

Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

moscow2012.fide.com

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#41

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

Chess in person with other people is quite different from chess online with random internet people. A chess tournament is usually more than just sitting down and playing your games--it is typical a social event.

You don't say if your kid was just playing in school tournaments, or if he was playing in tournaments open to all players. If the later, chess tournaments (and local chess clubs) are one of the few places kids can interact with adults and be treated as equals.

It's really a lot like sports. If your kid takes an interest in, say, basketball, will you stop him from getting on the school team because he has very little chance of becoming an NBA player?

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#43

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

>> One would be surprised to learn just how bad some really good Chess players are about other things in life. Really? Is Chess somehow different from any other activity? My teacher escaped from Kazakhstan simply because he could play Chess really well. Does the fact he chose an activity you have decided you don't like have any bearing on what type of person he is? Of course not. >>In other words, you need to turn a…

You're being a little harsh. I can relate to the frustration a player feels when progress seems to stall, unless you put some effort studying openings and endings.

Anyway, I agree with you. "To be a human database" is like saying that a musician is a "human sequencer". The joy of playing a good game or a difficult song has nothing to do with feeling like a machine. And you don't need to be a master to enjoy. In FICS there are enough players of my level so I can win... sometimes.

As for the discipline thing, there is something very important that chess teachs: the discipline of what works. It's following the rules that you win, not doing just what you would like. The frustration usually disappears when you accept that.

The sequential forced way of combinations is in particular a habit that helps me with my work.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree as general points. I'll disagree as it applies to Chess. The only way to escalate the ranks in chess is to become a living database. That transforms people. I've seen it and it's ugly. The chess you learned as a kid was a game. This chess is a very different animal. Off the top of my head, a profession that requires people to become a human database is something like pharmacology. These folks have to know a l…

In my opinion, up to a very, very high level, the importance of opening knowledge is vastly overrated. The two highest rated players in the world (Carlsen and Aronian, neither of them participating in this world championship match) frequently just aim to get a playable position out of the opening and still succeed in outplaying very strong opposition in the late middlegame/endgame. This despite the fact that it would…

If you think that they just play a couple of standard moves and the "wing it", you are mistaken. They both possess very deep opening knowledge, as do all top GMs.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#45

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

In order to become truly competitive in Chess you have to become a human database.

The higher the level of competition, it's actually more than becoming a database, but continually studying and making innovations, especially in opening theory. The innovations, inventions, discoveries in opening theory make chess a dynamic game unlike many other games and sports. What was considered the best move in the past, can be proven to be inferior to today's innovation.

It is not fun to play against a database, but on another note, one of the enjoyable parts of the game is it's possible to have masterpieces of your own. You can get into some situations where your play is just how the best human or computer would play. Composing a masterpiece and executing these combinations is very satisfying.

I admire GM's at the levels seen in these championships. Good for them. It is their chosen profession and they excel at it. However, I am no-longer in awe of their mental abilities.

I don't know which parts you admire and which parts you don't. Apart from playing nearly 10K games online, I don't know if you've played through the annotations of some GM games. Through their commentary written after the game, you get a picture of what they were thinking: both breadth and depth. Some of these calculations are remarkable mental abilities, similar to say people who mentally compute large numbers or have perfect memories.

My impression is that the top players of today have deeper, amazing mental abilities than players years ago. In the past superior judgment and evaluation was the key. I classify this era Karpov and earlier. IMO, the latter half of Kasparov's era and beyond, has required players not only to have strong positional understanding, but deeper calculations mentally. I have this theory that Karpov faded in the mid 90s not so much because of what he did, but because of the deeper rigor the newer generation had on calculations. Their depth of calculations was equal to Karpov's. In his era, Karpov had an edge on calculations and could make defensive moves that others thought would not work. The newer generation could calculate deeper and really find attacks that would overcome the defense, and that's why Karpov lost more. Disregarding the computer annotations, the commentary of what a top player was thinking during the game, can still be an awe-inspiring display of mental abilities.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#46
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this rings true at the highest levels of skill for most activities. The better you get, the more specialized your skillset has to become to continue winning, and the less applicable it becomes to other things. Regardless, I think there's something to be said for competing at a high level. It provides more than just entertainment, as some skills do translate if you let them: The confidence you gain by knowing…

I agree as general points. I'll disagree as it applies to Chess. The only way to escalate the ranks in chess is to become a living database. That transforms people. I've seen it and it's ugly. The chess you learned as a kid was a game. This chess is a very different animal. Off the top of my head, a profession that requires people to become a human database is something like pharmacology. These folks have to know a l…

> The only way to escalate the ranks in chess is to become a living database.

This happens in any field with significant theory. A chess grandmaster isn’t any more of a “living database” than a mathematician, for example, who spends about twenty years learning theory (from elementary school to Ph.D.) before working on original research. And in chess, just as in mathematics, learning theory is not as simple as memorization.

> Once chess becomes "who is the better database" it stops being intellectually or practically useful as far as I am concerned.

A player who knows some theory will always have an advantage over an amateur, but when the difference in players’ knowledge of theory is negligible, as it is in the top levels, it is strategy and tactics that win games.

I do understand your frustration, as an amateur chess player myself. But telling yourself that you would be a better player if you just spent some time memorizing opening lines is just a cop-out. That won’t make you a better player, it will just put you on equal ground with your opponents.

Edit: heh, coincidentally today’s game speaks for itself.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#47

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

>>His point was that, unless your goal is to become a world champion and somehow earn a living out of playing Chess the game can very easily become a huge waste of time. You don't learn anything more than playing Chess. It is false to assume that good Chess players are really smart people. Yes, they might have the ability to achieve deep concentration and focus on the game. One would be surprised to learn just how bad some really good Chess players are about other things in life.

I realized this while playing Sudoku. During my college days I had become a super expert at solving Sudoku. So much so the I would just start writing number as I saw the puzzles. All my college buddies though I was a uber genius guy with special abilities to solve Sudoku puzzles. But internally I new I was just a 'Human Database' as you would put it. Soon Sudoku go boring and I stopped playing it altogether.

I find the same with programming. I have far too many code templates and patterns in my brain. For every problem you throw I know a bunch of code patterns that can be inter played to form a solution. So much so that coding has become typing now.

Its just not fun anymore!

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#48
post #47

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

>>His point was that, unless your goal is to become a world champion and somehow earn a living out of playing Chess the game can very easily become a huge waste of time. You don't learn anything more than playing Chess. It is false to assume that good Chess players are really smart people. Yes, they might have the ability to achieve deep concentration and focus on the game. One would be surprised to learn just how ba…

Similarly, an acquaintance of mine used a lot of his post-grad Computer Science year conquering sokoban. Awesome and sad at the same time.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#49

A general comment about playing Chess. I've been playing since I was a kid. I like the game. Well, sort of. I've probably logged nearly 10K games on the playchess server. One day, while having a conversation about Chess with another (older) engineer he made a comment that really stuck in my mind, he said: "All you accomplish by playing a lot of Chess is to become a better Chess player". His comment had a point to it.…

Indeed, but you can say this about pretty much any hobby. What does playing Guitar get you beyond getting better at playing guitar? Snowboarding? Rock Climbing? Traveling the world? Building perfectly accurate models of 19th century warships? There are a million things that people can take up a a hobby, and even dedicate their entire life to. All of them have your same points in common that, unless you manage to beco…

Uncharted territories make interesting things to me. Once I figure out the secret sauce behind things, they stop being fun to me.

Some sports are enjoyable for sheer thrill and excitement. They go outside the bounds of a hobby, they are more of experiences.

Re: Chess World Championship 2012: A First Win

#50
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is exactly the same for competitive gaming, and for everything else that's competitive I think. At some point, I was competing at a national level (France) on Warcraft III, I realized that if I were to be in top8 or above, I had to play 50 hours / week. That's a full-time job, and the level of specialization and skill specificity you need is really high. I chose to work on my studies instead. Now I sometimes play…

It's minor, but competitive gamers generally do at least acquire mechanics that can be used for other games. I'm not sure if chess is like that.

I found my ability to perform well at certain board games (even those previously unknown to me) to improve after spending some effort studying chess. I attribute this to the improved ability to analyse abstract positions, to construct an increased number of possible moves and opponents' responses in my head in a short amount of time. Though confirmation bias etc.
Post reply on HN