Former world champion Robert Fischer said chess was about the search for truth. Chess players have taken great steps in this search, but there are aspects that have not been fully resolved. A few months ago some friends and I were talking about this matter. An interesting question emerged. If we could use the most powerful chess engines, and the best analysis procedures developed by the best analysts, what chess "mysteries" would we try to solve? For example, is Basman defense (1.e4 g5) sound? Is there a rebuttal for famous Evans gambit? Were all the exchange sacrifices made by Tigran V. Petrosian good? Pick some opening or variation or game in which you are really curious to know the truth.
The truth is, that playing the London is easy, but always boring to face.
Another truth is, that machines are better than their human creators. Maybe there's a lesson to be had?
Another truth is, that machines are better than their human creators. Maybe there's a lesson to be had?
You can't even prove that the basic position a piece (rook? queen?) up is a win.
Tigran or say Tal's sacrifices may not all have been 'sound' but they were facing human opponents and they often worked. Will your engine tell you why they worked in that game on that day? I doubt it.
@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #4:
> Tigran or say Tal's sacrifices may not all have been 'sound' but they were facing human opponents and they often worked. Will your engine tell you why they worked in that game on that day? I doubt it.
Thank you for your valuable comments. First of all, we are not talking about "my engine". Secondly, you forgot to read that part in which I propose to investigate using also methods of the best analysts (perhaps I forgot to clarify that I was talking about human beings). On the other hand, your question is interesting. Your answer is you have doubts. I am more categorical. My answer to your question is no engine can reveal why a certain tactical or positional maneuver worked on a certain day. Now, coming back to the question I raised, are you curious, from a technical point of view, about any notable chess moment?
> Tigran or say Tal's sacrifices may not all have been 'sound' but they were facing human opponents and they often worked. Will your engine tell you why they worked in that game on that day? I doubt it.
Thank you for your valuable comments. First of all, we are not talking about "my engine". Secondly, you forgot to read that part in which I propose to investigate using also methods of the best analysts (perhaps I forgot to clarify that I was talking about human beings). On the other hand, your question is interesting. Your answer is you have doubts. I am more categorical. My answer to your question is no engine can reveal why a certain tactical or positional maneuver worked on a certain day. Now, coming back to the question I raised, are you curious, from a technical point of view, about any notable chess moment?
@Sarg0n said in #3:
> You can't even prove that the basic position a piece (rook? queen?) up is a win.
I totally agree with you. The question you raise has not been tested so far. Thanks for giving us something to think about.
> You can't even prove that the basic position a piece (rook? queen?) up is a win.
I totally agree with you. The question you raise has not been tested so far. Thanks for giving us something to think about.
@george_mcgeorge said in #2:
> The truth is, that playing the London is easy, but always boring to face.
>
> Another truth is, that machines are better than their human creators. Maybe there's a lesson to be had?
I have no doubts about the validity of the London system.
Talking about exchange sacrifices. I would like to discover new exchange sacrifices like the one Anatoly Karpov made against Garry Kasparov in the Grunfeld defense.
> The truth is, that playing the London is easy, but always boring to face.
>
> Another truth is, that machines are better than their human creators. Maybe there's a lesson to be had?
I have no doubts about the validity of the London system.
Talking about exchange sacrifices. I would like to discover new exchange sacrifices like the one Anatoly Karpov made against Garry Kasparov in the Grunfeld defense.
@Professor74 These types of issues are the most interesting. GM Karsten Müller once proposed on Chessbase to analyze an endgame played by Fischer against Petrosian (Buenos Aires 1971). A contest was even organized. What issue would I like to investigate? Let's see... Oh! I would investigate the sacrifices made by Rudolf Spielmann to find out which of them were sound.
We have the truth. At least for the last 7-8 men standing.
@Professor74 said in #5:
> Thank you for your valuable comments. First of all, we are not talking about "my engine". Secondly, you forgot to read that part in which I propose to investigate using also methods of the best analysts (perhaps I forgot to clarify that I was talking about human beings). On the other hand, your question is interesting. Your answer is you have doubts. I am more categorical. My answer to your question is no engine can reveal why a certain tactical or positional maneuver worked on a certain day. Now, coming back to the question I raised, are you curious, from a technical point of view, about any notable chess moment?
That was just an expression, by 'your engine' i meant any engine you choose (the one best suited for the task). I wanted to point out that 'truth' is a rather vague term. Instead of saying that you are 'seeking the truth', which sounds vaunted, I think you should say what particular question you are trying to answer. example: Is a particular line a good choice for a side according to the current best engine, or are their better ones that are unknown. Why should we say 'with the current best engine'? Because a future engine may refute it. Then claim to 'known the truth' is only fleeting.
A completely different question is the one of what to play under particular circumstances when the opponents are two particular humans because this factors in a psychological dimension. That can be regarded as a kind of personal truth. It cannot be determined by your proposed means, even though it is also a very interesting question and one humans may find to be a meaningful truth as well.
That is the point i was making.
> Thank you for your valuable comments. First of all, we are not talking about "my engine". Secondly, you forgot to read that part in which I propose to investigate using also methods of the best analysts (perhaps I forgot to clarify that I was talking about human beings). On the other hand, your question is interesting. Your answer is you have doubts. I am more categorical. My answer to your question is no engine can reveal why a certain tactical or positional maneuver worked on a certain day. Now, coming back to the question I raised, are you curious, from a technical point of view, about any notable chess moment?
That was just an expression, by 'your engine' i meant any engine you choose (the one best suited for the task). I wanted to point out that 'truth' is a rather vague term. Instead of saying that you are 'seeking the truth', which sounds vaunted, I think you should say what particular question you are trying to answer. example: Is a particular line a good choice for a side according to the current best engine, or are their better ones that are unknown. Why should we say 'with the current best engine'? Because a future engine may refute it. Then claim to 'known the truth' is only fleeting.
A completely different question is the one of what to play under particular circumstances when the opponents are two particular humans because this factors in a psychological dimension. That can be regarded as a kind of personal truth. It cannot be determined by your proposed means, even though it is also a very interesting question and one humans may find to be a meaningful truth as well.
That is the point i was making.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.