So I've been playing chess for a while and still have my areas of improvement. but I figured I had to share this with somebody or something because I'm super psyched about the technology and its future. I'm sure this may be discussed elsewhere, but what are some thoughts In the community about integrating ChatGPT into Lichess as a personal chess coach during your study sessions or post-game analysis in the future?
I mean its able to read the PGN of a game and after asking it about the pros and cons of a game, it does an excellent job of breaking down some concepts involved during a certain exchange or pattern. Here is a recent game or mine that I lost as black and what it said about the game for an evaluation within a matter of seconds.
Game:
https://lichess.org/study/1cV6S3e1
Chat's Evaluation:
Certainly, let's review the last game you played as "NotShadowTroop9" (Black) and discuss the pros and cons of your play:
Pros:
Central Control: You effectively controlled the center with your pawn on e5 and pieces like the queen and bishop, which is a fundamental concept in chess.
King Safety: You castled kingside (8...O-O-O), ensuring the safety of your king.
Piece Coordination: Your pieces were coordinated well, and you maintained a harmonious position.
Active Play: You initiated active play with moves like 15...Re8 and 19...Qa2, putting pressure on your opponent's position.
Cons:
Piece Exchange (4...Bxc3): Exchanging your light-squared bishop for White's knight with 4...Bxc3 wasn't ideal, as it allowed White to maintain the bishop pair. Retaining the bishop pair would have been advantageous.
Pawn Moves (5...d5 and 6...Qxd5): These pawn moves, while gaining central control, led to doubled pawns on the d-file, which can create structural weaknesses.
Material Imbalance (12...f5): The move 12...f5, while aggressive, led to an exchange of pawns and ultimately an unfavorable material imbalance, as White's bishops became quite powerful.
Trading Queens (10...Qc5 and 11...Qxc6): Exchanging queens early in the game often simplifies the position, which might not be beneficial if you have more active piece play.
Hanging Pawns (17...Rxe8 and 20...Qa2): Moving your rook to e8 and queen to a2 resulted in a potential pin on the e-file, which White exploited with the move 24. Qxf7.
Failure to Capitalize on Early Opportunities: White's king remained in the center for a long time, but you didn't mount a strong attack on it, missing an opportunity to apply more pressure.
In summary, you demonstrated good central control, piece coordination, and active play in this game. However, there were moments where piece exchanges and structural decisions could have been more favorable. Additionally, taking advantage of opportunities to exploit White's exposed king might have led to a more advantageous position. Keep focusing on sound opening principles, effective piece development, and assessing material imbalances in your games.
Im not sure. I have to ask ChatGPT about my opinion....
Gpt states really obvious stuff, i dont think it is too helpful
Glad to know that I can say more about this game. the time of Terminators has not arrived!!
Don't believe it too much. For example, it told you not to trade the bishop for the knight, but the difference between that move and the best is 0.2 pawns. And in the lines where you don't trade the bishop, you end up trading it anyway in the next move if he decides to challenge it with a pawn. It's a problem if the AI lacks the finesse that the numbers add to the position, because then it directs your attention to the wrong parts of the game.
It also told you to attack the king while it was in the center, which is a generic advise that misses the nuance once again. The dude was there for two moves and you didn't have anything developed other than your queen; it is not clear how you're gonna attack a king and pawns with just a queen. Of course developing your other knight an rook was a more reasonable alternative.
Remember that ChatGPT is a model built to imitate the answers a human could give; it's not built to be an expert in chess. Asking ChatGPT anything is like asking a dude you know; he may be right or he may be making up some details. Analyze your games with the engine instead.
@NotShadowTroop9 said in #2:
> I mean its able to read the PGN of a game and after asking it about the pros and cons of a game, it does an excellent job of breaking down some concepts involved during a certain exchange or pattern.
Read it again, carefully. You'll find that much of what it says is complete nonsense (e.g. "Pawn Moves," "Material Imbalance," and "Hanging Pawns"). As the game progresses and you stray further from known theory, ChatGPT's analysis also becomes progressively more nonsensical.
Now, if someone were to create an AI that was able to use an existing chess engine like Stockfish to be able to explore the engine lines and try to explain them, that might work slightly better. AFAIK, no one has done this. On the other hand, you could probably do a much better job yourself (and probably learn better, since by discovering the information yourself, it will stick more).
Also, I believe that the reason you thought ChatGPT did an excellent job of explaining, is because it sounded very confident in its analysis. That's something you need to be careful of. Never trust ChatGPT, because it will often spew nonsense (not just chess related, but in general) with a high degree of confidence.
My experience of talking to ChatGPT about a chess position about nine months ago was not a happy one. It came out with utter nonsense.
The position I wanted it to discuss was at move 29 of game 1 of the 1972 World Championship match. In an absolutely barren and dead drawn bishop-and-pawns endgame Fischer played the extraordinary move 29...Bxh2 allowing Spassky to trap and win the bishop for two pawns and going on to lose the game.
The initial comment by ChatGPT set the tone of that conversation:
"Robert J. Fischer played the move 29...Bxh2 in the first game of his 1972 world championship match against Boris Spassky for strategic reasons. The move was designed to force Spassky's king to move and weaken his pawn structure, which would give Fischer a better chance to launch a successful attack against Spassky's position.
By sacrificing his bishop, Fischer was able to lure Spassky's king out of its relatively safe position on g1 and force it to move to h1. This move created weaknesses in Spassky's pawn structure, as the king's pawn was no longer protected by the king and became a potential target for Fischer's pieces.
Fischer's move was also aimed at disrupting Spassky's long-term plans and creating confusion in his opponent's mind. By sacrificing a bishop in a seemingly illogical move, Fischer hoped to unsettle Spassky and force him to make a mistake.
Overall, Fischer's move 29...Bxh2 was a bold and creative strategy that played to his strengths as a player and aimed to disrupt his opponent's game plan. While it was a risky move, it ultimately paid off, as Fischer went on to win the game and eventually the match."
Where do you even begin when evaluating such utter claptrap?
Don't use ChatGPT for chess advice. As others above, particularly JuicyChickenNO1, have already said, it is not designed to provide expertise but instead to imitate human responses which are not necessarily knowledgeable.
Well, I don't suppose it would be any worse than a lot of the stuff in the blogs. ;)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.