Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

nothing ventured

to follow up on my last post about the chess, one thing that really stands out for me is how many times both players, in the analysis of computer-assisted observers, have failed to make midgame or lategame moves that would have set them up for a near certain victory. i would not be surprised if it is the case that players who've reached this level are fairly risk-averse overall and all too willing to accept a draw rather than lose (and perhaps look foolish) and although i don't know this to be true it is quite possible those moves were unorthodox and risky. still, it says a lot to me that our greatest human players can fail to glimpse all of the possibilities once they've been substantially narrowed, even as they clearly see so many of them; that even they are quite fallible. i wonder how much of the admixture each contributes to these failings, between risk-averse play, failing of ability, and over-reliance on known lines of play causing unorthodox unprepared-for lines of play to be dismissed out of hand (out of mind...). have our best players perhaps become more 'robotic' than actual (with figurative license) robots?


Nov. 26th, 2018 04:30 am (UTC)
There's no intuitive way to see subtle differences in an endgame. For example computers showed -- to everyone's surprise -- that two bishops against a king could force a mate after about 90 moves. Until then two bishops was regarded as a certain draw between grandmasters. None of the bishop moves were intuitive. They went all over the board in apparent indifference to the other king. But the vice slowly closed. Go seems to be like that too now, when the best programs play it. Humans have no idea what the programs are doing but the programs win. Whereas in middle games you can see what computers are trying to do -- break out, attack, defend. The resistance of so many opposing pieces means that the computer's pieces don't have free run of the board as in endgames. The near term goals are a lot more important in middle than in end games. Humans can intuit over longer stretches in middle games than in endgames.

Edited at 2018-11-26 04:32 am (UTC)
Nov. 26th, 2018 08:16 am (UTC)
i appreciate your insights. i seem to vaguely recall reading about that 2 bishops thing -- i did at one point read a book about endgames when i was trying to see if polishing my gane would reveal any underlying value but i didn’t retain much and it was probably 10-14 years ago.


blue legacy
cleaning up so well

Latest Month

June 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Witold Riedel