Computer Chess and Creativity
Is the era of Chess Engine creativity upon us? Or, just because computers can't protest we just pretend that computer Chess is a beast and there is no beauty to it? Fischer and even much before him, Capablanca, had said that Chess was more or less solved. But from recent Super GM and GM comments, it appears that we are seeing a paradigm shift. Computers are now influencing a new approach that is being adopted by an increasing number of players. Even more glaring is the fact that the play at the grassroots level is sharper than ever. Of course, the leader of the move towards this new style of play is none other than who it should be - The World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand, who crushed Vladimir Kramnik with an amazing display of a combination of Computer preparation and also over the board precise play that even computers would find hard to match.
Read the following quotes.
"Something sinister is lurking behind some magnificent chess victories these days. It is getting harder to tell what is actually created by humans and what is spit out by chess computers during preparation" declares Lubomir Kavalek in a Washington post article
"In a sharp Nimzo-Indian variation, which I prepared for Nigel Short to combat Garry Kasparov in the 1993 world championship, black navigates the stormy lines with unusual ease." says Lubomir
Karpov recently made a controversial statement that Anand was playing like a computer and he was not as strong as he was a decade ago!
Add to this, the forfeit by Mamedyarov, who accused Igor Kursonov that he suspected foul play.
So what do you think? Can accuracy ever be beautiful? Or we do we just strive for beauty and abandon the accurate? Remember the violent, blood thirsty age of the romanticists and attacking Chess a couple of hundred years back? Well, it was eventually taken over by the pragmatics. So are we ready to move to the next stage where precise play overrides adventure?
Read the following quotes.
"Something sinister is lurking behind some magnificent chess victories these days. It is getting harder to tell what is actually created by humans and what is spit out by chess computers during preparation" declares Lubomir Kavalek in a Washington post article
"In a sharp Nimzo-Indian variation, which I prepared for Nigel Short to combat Garry Kasparov in the 1993 world championship, black navigates the stormy lines with unusual ease." says Lubomir
Karpov recently made a controversial statement that Anand was playing like a computer and he was not as strong as he was a decade ago!
Add to this, the forfeit by Mamedyarov, who accused Igor Kursonov that he suspected foul play.
So what do you think? Can accuracy ever be beautiful? Or we do we just strive for beauty and abandon the accurate? Remember the violent, blood thirsty age of the romanticists and attacking Chess a couple of hundred years back? Well, it was eventually taken over by the pragmatics. So are we ready to move to the next stage where precise play overrides adventure?
Comments