Thread: Ask me about chess

Why is it considered a strategic game, as if it's using real strategy, when all it is is a brain-wracking competition on who can keep the most possibilities of the opponent's moves in mind?

Heh, not to sound hostile, but I just highly dislike the association of chess with the Art of War and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Why is it considered a strategic game, as if it's using real strategy, when all it is is a brain-wracking competition on who can keep the most possibilities of the opponent's moves in mind?

Heh, not to sound hostile, but I just highly dislike the association of chess with the Art of War and whatnot.

Maybe because your conception of war is two flying guys battling each other with oversized swords?

Thanks for making that utterly baseless and insulting deduction...

Originally Posted by Merlock

Why is it considered a strategic game, as if it's using real strategy, when all it is is a brain-wracking competition on who can keep the most possibilities of the opponent's moves in mind?

That's an excellent question. I'll do my best to answer it.

Since the 60s, programmers have been trying to get a computer to play a good game of chess. It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to produce a monster that would defeat all comers, regardless of strength. After all, can't a computer just look further ahead than a human, and beat him by shear brute force?

It turns out the problem was much more difficult than thought. In fact, it took more than 40 years to produce a computer that could defeat Kasparov in a regular match. Even then, most of the games were drawn. Why is this?

First of all, there are an enormous number of positions to evaluate on each move. If you consider that on average, there are about 30 moves available at each ply (half turn), that's about 729 million different positions to evaluate after just three turns. And what about that evaluation? No matter how far ahead you look, you still have to know which side stands better at that point. The position is clear if you see a checkmate, but if you don't, you still have to evaluate.

The best chess grandmasters can probably see 15 moves ahead during optimal conditions, but they don't really need to see deeper. It turns out that seeing wider is better than seeing deeper. That is, being able to truly evaluate each position based on open files, ranks, imbalances, king safety, pawn structure, piece activity, control of the center, and other factors. That's why the best chess programmers today concentrate more on position evaluation than on search ply depth.

So knowing this, let's get back to your question. Where is the strategy? Generally, there are two main strengths of a player; tactical, and strategical.

Tactics are easy to understand, if somewhat difficult to master. They involve recognizing a pattern on the board as having certain features, and taking advantage of that recognition by aggressive moves (usually captures and exchanges) to win material or positional advantage. For example, a tactic may take advantage of a weak king position to win material, giving an oponent the unsavory choice of losing a piece or losing the game.

Strategy, on the other hand, has to do with controlling squares, files, and ranks, as well as knowing the best positions for the pieces, and how to get them there. A strategy is a plan to optain an advantage, whether it is material or positional. It can not easily be "computed" because it involves many possible contingencies, and can easily encompass a percieved advantage that may not be readily apparent for many moves to come.

Until the programs got much smarter, a grandmaster could easily beat them. Not by looking further ahead, but by knowing that a good strategical position would win in the end. They played for long-term advantages, using speculative sacrifices for a positional edge.

Which is better? A pawn, or an open rank with an unopposed rook on it? Well it depends... how many and which type of pieces are still on the board? Can the file be easily contested? Are there good outposts for the knights? How open is the board for whichever bishops are left? This is heavy duty stuff for a computer, especially if it needs to evaluate this for each of tens of millions of positions each turn.

This is what strategy is all about. Even if a computer is ever able to "solve" chess (probably more than 50 years off at least), humans will never be able to, and must rely on position evaluation and instinct as well as tactical knowledge.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Thanks for making that utterly baseless and insulting deduction...

Sorry , but is it true?

I find that chess emulates the ideas of war quite well, well at least in a medieval setting.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I find that chess emulates the ideas of war quite well, well at least in a medieval setting.

There are many war strategies that translate to chess. Here are a few off the top of my head.

Mobility
Rooks need open files to become more powerful. Bishops need open diagonals. Knights can take advantage of these pieces if they are trapped or have limited mobility. A player needs to open roads for his pieces so they can easily travel to where they are most needed. Controlling the center of the board means you are more likely to have an easy way to get pieces from one side to the other.

Communication
Pieces "communicate" by protecting the squares their comrades occupy. Forcing a piece to abandon this protection weakens the piece it was supporting.

Maintaining Outposts
Just like conquering a central hill in battle helps in war, setting up an outpost on a square that is not easily attacked is very important. Even moreso if it is deep in enemy territory.

Kamikaze Attacks
Often a king tucked away in its fortress has his protection blown away by the sacrifice of material. The enemy pounces on opportunity by seemingly giving away his pieces for the sake of making the king more vulnerable. After all, what does it matter how many men are lost so long as the war is won?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Sorry , but is it true?

I would've thought the fact that I mentioned the Art of War would have shown that I have some knowledge on the topic. Serious knowledge, not delusional banter.

Seriously, don't generalise. The wisest and most highly achieved still have all the right in the world to enjoy fiction and anime, as is present in my signature, is just as much a fantasy as any other work of fiction, for the enjoyment of those that come across it.

As for the various aspects translating into the game...I can see that you see them in there but I don't. Not sure why. But even with all those examples above, I don't see them as relating to the way chess is played. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Merlock

As for the various aspects translating into the game...I can see that you see them in there but I don't. Not sure why. But even with all those examples above, I don't see them as relating to the way chess is played. *shrug*

I'm curious as to your level of chess. How much have you played? Have you studied strategy?

Usually when learning chess, it is best to learn tactics first, with just a small amount of very basic strategy. One doesn't usually go very deep into positional study until they've been playing for awhile.

Originally Posted by skysaw

That's an excellent question. I'll do my best to answer it.

...

This is what strategy is all about. Even if a computer is ever able to "solve" chess (probably more than 50 years off at least), humans will never be able to, and must rely on position evaluation and instinct as well as tactical knowledge.

Well, I think that's why I don't see the likeness...chess is chess...while reality is reality. The game of chess is predetermined in every way aside from the moves the players make. Everything else is static. Where as reality is everchanging and colourful in many ways.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Usually when learning chess, it is best to learn tactics first, with just a small amount of very basic strategy. One doesn't usually go very deep into positional study until they've been playing for awhile.

Like that, for instance...do you mean studying strategy as a whole or studying strategies, in the sense that when you study chess, you study various possible strategies to use?
In reality there are no set strategies, everything is original every time. Only the basics are present.

Hrm, a tough thought to explain, I guess. But thanks for the answer.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Well, I think that's why I don't see the likeness...chess is chess...while reality is reality. The game of chess is predetermined in every way aside from the moves the players make. Everything else is static. Where as reality is everchanging and colourful in many ways.

Like that, for instance...do you mean studying strategy as a whole or studying strategies, in the sense that when you study chess, you study various possible strategies to use?
In reality there are no set strategies, everything is original every time. Only the basics are present.

Hrm, a tough thought to explain, I guess. But thanks for the answer.

I understand what you mean, and have had the thought myself. But let me put a different perspective on this.

There is a point after which a number is so large, that for all practical purposes, it is infinity. Let me give you some examples:

Music is a creative field. The possibilities are infinite, most would say. So how many discretely different 3-minute songs can you write and record on a CD? The number is extremely large, but it is not infinite. Each second of sound is stored as 44,000 samples. Each sample is a 16-bit number, or one of 65,536 possible values. A little multiplication tells us that there are just over one trillion possible distinctly different 3 minute songs that can be put on a CD. Does knowing there is an upper boundary mean that creative music writing is futile? A question for philosophy.

What about computer art? There are a finite number of possible images that can be projected on your computer screen at its current resolution and bit depth. Does that mean that computer artists can't be creative? Are they merely selecting one of the possibilities, and displaying it as if it were their own? Another philosophic question.

So back to chess. Take a look at this article on what is called the Shannon Number. This is the estimated number of playable chess games of about 40 moves in length (a typical length, though they get much longer!). The number calculated was 10^120. As a comparison, the number of atoms in the Universe, is estimated to be between 4x10^79 and 10^81.

It bears emphasizing this point: The number of playable chess games is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!

Now if creativity can be found in the scant few (by comparison) variations in a three-minute CD recording, or a piece of computer art, is it that difficult to imagine it being applied to the many possibilites of chess?

Being able to analyse a situation, plan ahead well enough to predict and be able to counter your opponent's moves, and to eventually win the game, is something that is easily applicable to real life situations like war.

There are differences, like the numerous variables and factors that you can't predict in real life, and so on, but the basic principles and thought processes remain translatable.

The medieval setting is somewhat argable, you could play chess in pretty much any context and it would have no effect on the game, surely?

Weren't there two topics in ask/tell about chess already?

Originally Posted by Sindred

The medieval setting is somewhat argable, you could play chess in pretty much any context and it would have no effect on the game, surely?

The game obviously does not change. But psychology plays a big part in chess. Especially if by "context" you include time settings.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I was rated 1830 USCF, and was rising when I stopped playing rated games.

Haha I'm almost as good as you. Although I don't play chess at all.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Haha I'm almost as good as you. Although I don't play chess at all.

Are you USCF rated? If so, what's your rating? Computer or online ratings don't count.

1800. I played at a tournament a long time ago, after destroying everyone in my town in a local chess-off. But the game bores me so I don't ever play.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Well, I think that's why I don't see the likeness...chess is chess...while reality is reality. The game of chess is predetermined in every way aside from the moves the players make. Everything else is static. Where as reality is everchanging and colourful in many ways.

How is reality any different? What we do is determined by the actions we take. The only difference is life has many factors while chess has only two, you and your opponent.

I found a good place to learn chess strategy: http://illogicopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Chess

Originally Posted by Merlock

I would've thought the fact that I mentioned the Art of War would have shown that I have some knowledge on the topic. Serious knowledge, not delusional banter.

Seriously, don't generalise. The wisest and most highly achieved still have all the right in the world to enjoy fiction and anime, as is present in my signature, is just as much a fantasy as any other work of fiction, for the enjoyment of those that come across it.

As for the various aspects translating into the game...I can see that you see them in there but I don't. Not sure why. But even with all those examples above, I don't see them as relating to the way chess is played. *shrug*

Fair enough, and as for chess' relevance to war, you have to keep in mind that all that in-depth strategy and probabilty memorization stuff only started around the 19th century. Before that, strategy wasn't so rigorous and planned, people thought stuff up as they played.

Actually strategic thinking in chess only started gaining ground late in the 19'th century with Lasker and Steinitz and only made its breakthrough in the early 1900s.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Actually strategic thinking in chess only started gaining ground late in the 19'th century with Lasker and Steinitz and only made its breakthrough in the early 1900s.

Just spam the newb forum and get banned already.

Very mature Spartiate.

I should probably mention Morphy, who was ahead of his time. He played mid-1800s and is considered the first strategical genius, however he wasn't as methodical as Steinitz would be.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Actually strategic thinking in chess only started gaining ground late in the 19'th century with Lasker and Steinitz and only made its breakthrough in the early 1900s.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Just spam the newb forum and get banned already.

M is correct. Of course strategy has always been important, but this was somewhat of a turning point in the game. Positional considerations were not deeply appreciated until these guys appeared on the scene.

Originally Posted by skysaw

M is correct. Of course strategy has always been important, but this was somewhat of a turning point in the game. Positional considerations were not deeply appreciated until these guys appeared on the scene.

I don't know where he's copying that from, but all it takes is a quick look at his recent posts to find out that he's a troll.

Edit: Also he pretty much says exactly the same thing as in my post above.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Fair enough, and as for chess' relevance to war, you have to keep in mind that all that in-depth strategy and probabilty memorization stuff only started around the 19th century. Before that, strategy wasn't so rigorous and planned, people thought stuff up as they played.

Ugh...who had that brilliant idea? What fun is there in turning the game into a rigorous, monotonous, mentally exhausting to no end competition of foresight and memorisation?

Down with modern chess, up with medieval chess!

M-Cat, no one is amused. Enjoy your time here on DV. I have a feeling it will be short.

Skysaw, what is a grand master, how do you become one and who determines who is a grand master?