![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/ece351e3981a353b2331e08fa065b5c4.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
13 minute read
Do Computers have a positive impact on Chess? Inha Choi, Remove
do computers have a positive impact on chess
Inha Choi, Remove
NB: It is recommended that one understands the chess annotation symbols and chess algebraic no
tation prior to reading the article. An easy explanation can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Algebraic_notation_(chess) Chess is an ancient game, played from 6 th century AD (Wikipedia, n.d.), which is now played prominently around the world 1 . Due the recent developments of computers and, more specifically, chess engines, in Chess, now, computers play an irreplaceable role. All chess books inevitably are verified with engines before being published, and there is not a single grandmaster who does not verify his opening preparation with a chess engine. Despite these positive effects that the development of computers had brought upon chess, it can be argued that chess engines are negatively impacting chess for a few reasons. This can include factors such as cheating, or excessive opening preparation, which clearly is harmful to the game. Considering a variety of effects the computer has had on the game, and evaluating its significance, we will conclude whether computers are beneficial to the game. Perhaps the most significant role that computers play in modern day chess is its role in opening preparation. Opening preparation is the process anticipating the opening moves of the opposing player in advance of the game, through a chess database 2 , and preparing for it in advance. This usually allows the players to play the best moves in the beginning of the game, drawing the opponent into a position in which the player with more opening preparation is more comfortable and most likely better objectively, leading to a practical, and theoretical advantage. This, in itself, is not inherently harmful. Opening preparation for the games is natural given the intrinsic competitive spirit of the game. However, due to the excessive usage of computers in preparation, some games finish without a single original move being played, especially in theoretical and doubleedged openings such as the ‘Sicilian Defence’ or the ‘Benko Gambit’, in which the calculative prowess of computers becomes most apparent. The game below is an example of this happening:
3 In this game, the two players played until move 20 solely with opening preparation, from a very double-edged variation of the Sicilian Najdorf, a variation of the Sicilian Defence. In this position, after 21. Nxc8+, Black played 21..Kf6??, which was the first original move of the game. Following this mistake, the white player, who clearly had been better prepared, exploited the mistake and the game concluded in 4 more moves (all of which were part of White’s preparation). In games like such, chess becomes a battle of computers and memory, rather than a game of original ideas and calculation. It can be argued that, when considering games such as this, opening preparation is devaluing the qualities we value the game for.
Figure 1 Position after 21. Nxc8+
1 25-30 million people according to recent polls (Winter, 2009) 2 This is easily accessible by everyone and thus done by all strong players (e.g. https://www.chessgames.com/index.html - a free chess database) 3 Paris 1999 I. Timmermans – P.Chomet (1-0)
This argument, however, cannot be applied for the whole of chess and opening preparation in general. This is because, when one player actively plays to neutralise the effect of opening preparation through playing stable and safe variations, where the importance of understanding the position trumps the significance of raw calculation, which although may not produce an objective advantage, it can always ensure a practical advantage given through more experience and understanding. Computers too, on this front, are not invincible. In fact, in terms of understanding positions, as a computer evaluates the position through extensive, short term calculations of concrete variations, unlike humans, who have a general strategic goal (e.g. control of the white squares4), the computer is close to incompetent in areas as such5. This is clearly demonstrated in this example:
6In this position, while computers indicate that this is an easy win for white, due to the material imbalance, it is clear to humans that it is in fact a draw, as if white plays the move 1. Ba4+!., 1..Kxa4 must be played as black has no choice but to capture eventually as Kc4 leads to a repetition of moves with Bb3+ followed by Ba4+, leading to a draw through repetition. Following this move, all moves are then forced: 2.b3+ Kb5 3. c4+ Kc6 4.d5+ Kd7 5.e6+ Kxd8 (or Ke8 – it does not matter) 6.f5 is a clear draw as black does not have a way to infiltrate. However, computers, due to the lack of strategic understanding, still evaluate it as a win.
Using this blind spot of computers, strong players such as Magnus Carlsen sidestep opening preparation through the theoretically unchallenging, but strategically sound London System, which leads Figure 2 An Endgame Study by W.E Rudolph to positions in which engines are no better than humans. As he (Mukhuty, 2019) intends to outplay players through raw skill rather than memorisation or intensive preparation7, he, and many others like him8, plays in this way, adding originality to the game.
We can see this as being a clear benefit that chess engines have brought for humans. Because of this, even before the prominence of chess computers, as opening preparation was still extensive, as more openings were studied into larger depth by humans, continually, the number of original moves played in a game decreased. With the engines having demonstrated to us the consequences of excessive opening preparation, evidently, it is not dissuading us from playing original moves, but rather encouraging it. Through this we can see that, although engines can cause harm in the opening phase if both play intending to do so, it has encouraged very strong players to play more originally than they would have before engines. Therefore, we can see that, assuming we act appropriately in response to the use of engines in the opening phase, engines cause the games to be played in a more original manner. After having looked at the opening, naturally, looking at the effects of computers in the middle game is most logical. Before discussing the more complex and controversial effects of the computers in the middle game, we must first consider the obvious, unhealthy impact of computers on chess – cheating.
⁴A very common theme in the English openings (Cummings, 2016) ⁵Previous Chess World Champion Botvinnik remarked that engines were ‘Tireless giants’ on account of their raw calculation ⁶There are different versions of the same puzzle ⁷Notable game: M. Carlsen – E. Tomashevsky, Tata steel masters 2016 ⁸Anatoly Karpov frequently used the 6.Be2 variation in the Sicilian defence for similar reasons
It is long since the match between IBM’s Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov was fair. In other words, engines are now much stronger than humans. In fact, differently to the supercomputer IBM needed to beat Kasparov, now, an engine with the computational power of a phone can crush even the strongest humans with ease9. Using this, there have been incidents where certain players attempted to cheat, both for money and fame. The most famous incident is perhaps the cheating scandal in the 39 th Chess Olympiad (Wikipedia, 39th Chess Olympiad, n.d.). Three French players used engines in order to win prize money and beat other genuine players. Furthermore, as a separate matter from genuinely cheating, some players are falsely accused 10 - it can definitely be argued that, in this way, engines are destroying the spirit of the game. Although it may seem that this issue is inevitably damaging, due to the efficiency of FIDE (the international chess federation) and the development of technology to stop such actions (e.g. metal detectors). FIDE have successfully mitigated the damages done by cheating, through slapping sanctions at the responsible parties (FIDE, 2019) and preventing such matters from happening initially through training arbiters (FIDE, FIDE Arbiter’s handbook, 2018). With this having been considered, it still cannot be said that the effect of cheating is completely neutralised as it is impossible to stop all incidents and not all damage can be mitigated. However, we can see that the damages done by cheating is not as large as it might be expected. Also, even if this were the case, it is the players, not the engine that does the damage. Although engines may produce a better way to cheat, to argue that engines are causing cheating would be to say that guns are causing murders. Even before engines, there were players who bribed other players for a win or a draw.
Should cheating be the only effect computers had on the middle game, it would be clear that computers are negatively affecting the game. This is not the case, as computers have been constantly teaching us and improving our understanding of the game, as will become apparent in the next paragraphs.
Until recently, many experts and chess masters opined thatchess was studied to such an extent that, when played perfectly, it would be a draw without much action throughout the game 11 . Recently, with the emergence of a chess engine called ‘AlphaZero’, pioneering a new swashbuckling and attacking, yet sound style of play. In a 100-game match played against Stockfish, an open source engine that was previously the strongest, AlphaZero comfortably obliterated it with a score of 28 wins and 72 draws (Wikipedia, AlphaZero, n.d.). His attacking prowess is shown in this game against Stockfish.
Figure 3 Position after the 50th move 12 In the following diagram, AlphaZero had given up 2 pawns and a rook for a bishop in order to generate an attack. It is to note that in this position, although only in terms of material, that white is losing. However, the material was not lost – AlphaZero had given it up in order to gain a positional advantage. Here, we can see the aggressive playing style of AlphaZero: although white has less material, its attack is fierce – in fact, none of black’s pieces are performing a better job than the white bishop as they are passive, defending the f7 pawn. In this position, AlphaZero demonstrates the power of his position with 51.g4!!.
⁹Magnus Carlsen had a peak rating of 2882 while the elo rating of Stockifish is 3438. The difference of the rating is as big as the difference between a club player and a grandmaster. 10 Vladimir Kramnik was falsely accused of cheating by Topalov in the 2006 World Championship Match – referred to as the ‘toiletgate scandal’ (Barden, 2006) 11 This is due to the fact that Stockfish, who was thought to play perfectly, played in a stodgy and defensive style 12 (Chessgames.com, 2017) 26
With this move, which apparently threatens nothing, AlphaZero delivers the coup de grâce. Despite its innocuous looks, this leaves Stockfish in zugzwang (i.e. it is in a position in which any move it makes worsens the position). Stockfish had to inevitably give up a pawn with 51.d5, and AlphaZero went on to win the game. Games such as these help us understand that, as of yet, the game has not been concluded to be an objective draw and that an attacking style still holds significance. Some people and strong players, such as GM Robert Hess, states that, although this informs us that chess cannot be concluded as being a draw yet due to the new information provided by AlphaZero, but it does not assist humans in playing the game as its playing ability of engines is based on its massive calculating capacity – a trait that humans do not possess. This, however, could not be further from the truth. This may apply for older engines such as Stockfish or Fritz, which were taught by humans to play chess. AlphaZero, on the other hand, taught itself, through playing millions of games with itself, noting the strategies which led to victory. Through this, while Stockfish was confined to the human understanding of chess, AlphaZero pioneered new ideas in the game of chess, which were previously rejected or even unknown by humans. With this, AlphaZero informs humans on previously unknown themes and strategy, clearly benefitting the game. A typical example is when AlphaZero plays both h4 and a4, in order to gain space in both flanks. This idea was previously rejected due to the weakness on g5 it created and, Karpov, a previous world champion, remarked that this was ‘no way to play chess’. However, through successes by AlphaZero against Stockfish through playing h4 13 , this affected the human practice of chess on the highest levels. At move seven, inspired by AlphaZero, Maxime Vachier Lagrave (MVL) played 7.h4, and even 8.h5. This move, which would have been considered an inaccuracy 10 years ago, gave MVL an opening advantage, which eventually led to a win.
With all factors having been taken into account 14 , it is evident that computers have constantly been increasing our knowledge of the game. Although factors such as cheating and excessive opening preparation can be used to argue otherwise, it is clear that these are caused by the individual players, rather than the engines, and can be avoided in some cases (e.g. Magnus Carlsen’s London System). As the engines are constantly teaching us and supporting us in our improvement in our understanding of chess, we can safely conclude that it is beneficial to the game.
Figure 4 Position after 7.h4
13 Good example in the third game of its ‘top 20 games’ (Deepmind, 2018) 14 The endgame is not discussed, as computers have not made a significant impact on the endgame
Bibliography
Barden, L. (2006). Kramnik’s carry on over his own convenience. The Guardian. Chessgames.com. (2017, Dec 4). AlphaZero (Computer) vs Stockfish (Computer). Retrieved from Chessgames.com: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1899416 Cummings, D. (2016). Opening Repertoire - the English. New in Chess. Deepmind, G. (2018). Deepmind.com. Retrieved from AlphaZero Resources: https://deepmind.com/research/open-source/alphazero-resources FIDE. (2018). FIDE Arbiter’s handbook. Retrieved from arbiters.fide.com: http://arbiters.fide.com/images/ stories/downloads/2018/Arbiters-Manual-2018-v1.pdf FIDE. (2019, 12 5). FIDE Ethics Commission announces the sanctions against Igor Rausis. Retrieved from FIDE.com: https://www.fide.com/news/246 Mukhuty, S. (2019, 5 30). The Problemist Diary Part 4: Theatrical Positional Draw. Retrieved from Chessbase: https://chessbase.in/news/Problemist-diary-part-4-The-Theatrical-Positional-Draw Roeder, O. (2018, 1 3). Chess’s New Best Player Is A Fearless, Swashbuckling Algorithm. Retrieved from fivethirtyeight.com: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/chesss-new-best-player-is-a-fearless-swashbuckling-algorithm/#:~:text=Two%20broad%20themes%20emerged%3A%20 First,not%20stodgy%2C%20defensive%20and%20careful. Wikipedia. (n.d.). 39th Chess Olympiad. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_ Chess_Olympiad#Controversies Wikipedia. (n.d.). History of Chess. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ chess#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20chess%20can,the%20game%20spread%20to%20Persia. Winter, E. (2009, March 29). How many people play chess? Retrieved from chesshistory.com: https://www. chesshistory.com/winter/extra/chessplayers.html#:~:text=’Today%2C%20according%20to%20recent%20polls,’
fly fishing on the nadder
Ned Tucker, Shell
https://radleycollege-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/rdw_woodling_radley_org_uk/ EQCAS4IozBtPtueJ5DkRgM0B4unmNzzf1_5UlwA8Iuy7SA?e=VTq7pU
a poem under lockdown
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/d87027c7e25945628ba2317ae3ff2336.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Freddie Finlan, Remove
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/172d0e715aa73fcb6ec6afb9a459eaf3.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/418c5b64671a542ca5308fdc578dfae2.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/6d6c5201ec67f02e9f90e55f1ed5f84c.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/799c818359d8ed55f497f07bce092635.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/1e29154efcb31f5984ba970f73868951.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/8efba6e0b22a159ee00946febf5841b6.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/0bd1da3e17bde8043038649940b4edb3.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/b579fa81691c127abfc8be4fb8a0d7d2.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/4f4ad51e19a2cfebe49abac5b2a04a5f.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/ee3fd53c15083886713dc9901396cd9b.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/8f6dcd7df9123eea1e2aff062047ece2.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/660f5446d2ef22c4f098da7e47e785c9.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/29295045c970cae0afedcf1a30b30fac.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/26ecbf279c345cba4bacdcaaba4514e9.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/9153ee40a85f425cb9b94c39decdbb75.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/201006153309-bf75617af6b16342b04953236109d29a/v1/5570945ed8b3c1a1aa2e64f232645813.jpg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)