Former chess prodigy here. I had the honor of training with Pal Benko in the early 90s when I represented Team USA in the world youth championships. I remember Benko being a real class act, which I can’t say about many of the chess personalities I’ve met over the years. You could tell he was absolutely, passionately in love with chess. In that sense he represented something pure which maybe we’ve lost in this new era.
That said, let’s be clear. The golden era of American chess, and chess in general, is happening now and only getting better. I give credit to to open-source projects like LiChess and Lc0, tournaments like LiChess Titled where mere mortals get a chance to challenge Magnus, and the rise of chess streaming as a thing.
Heck, I’ll concede that the golden era of classical chess is over. But it’s been over for a while, pretty much since computers advanced opening theory and took all the wins out of classical. RIP classical chess. But for those willing to think on their feet, the golden era of blitz and bullet is here :-)
Yeah, unfortunately, this is true. But inevitable as you pointed out, as it is with many games that become hyper-optimized due to the rise of computing power (and GPUs being turned into powerhouses as of late).
Fischer did get that part right; that classic tournament chess was dying and/or dead. FRC is a fun variant but the writing's on the wall; blitz/bullet and of course bughouse are all the rage today.
And of course, there's always Jerry to watch [0], who is a pleasure.
Am watching the World Cup right now. Before that watched the Sinquefield Cup. Both (so far) exciting events, not sure how you can pronounce classical chess dead.
Bullet, lol---chess without thinking. It's the thinking I like about chess. The carefully-worked-out combinations, brilliant defensive plans, drawing swindles etc. If people like playing bullet, great, but it seems another game entirely.
People complaining here about the draws in the last world championship: the WCC matches are much too short these days, players won't take risks as there's no time to catch up if they backfire. But "shorter, faster" is supposed to cure everything. Anyway, Karpov and Kasparov had a lot of draws, 17 in a row in 1984, in virtually the pre-computer era.
Re classical, if you don’t want to take my word for it, look up the chess24 interview after the last world champs where magnus said it was so unenjoyable he wasn’t even sure if he’d defend his title.
No offense, only people who suck at bullet say it doesn’t involve thinking. It’s the same game, it involves developing and training your intuition. I could teach anyone how to get good, even you... if you were open to learn that is.
(And had the budget or could trade for coding hours :-)
When I first started getting back into chess a few years ago, I absolutely _could not play_ blitz or bullet -- after the opening, I'd squander all my time in a few moves.
After a few months of practicing, though, I really started to enjoy it -- it really _feels_ like time dilation / thinking faster when you complete an entire chess game, to mate, in the range of 2 to 6 minutes. I'm also certain that this practice has helped me a lot with focus when doing technical work.
[I'm still a lousy player, but that's beside the point, haha!]
p.s. re : American chess : Nakamura is, in my opinion, one of the greats -- and he [like Carlsen] has that quality about him that gets kids excited to play chess.
[On a different note, it's great to have Hou as a role model for girls who want to play - I feel like she's up there with Polgar in the 'inspirational' category]
Mainly full stack web (Node JS). I have a functional proof of concept integrated with Lichess and Stockfish API + custom chess code. It needs about week of love from a full stack dev to turn into an MVP I can test on actual humans.
If you have to say "No offense" to begin a sentence, it probably doesn't belong on HN. And "..even you..if you were open to learn" is in the same vein. I'm not interested in communicating further.
Edit: Gee, lots of downvotes. Not sure why. Should I have said nothing? I thought the way they spoke to me was utterly unacceptable, as I calmly pointed out. My initial points were mostly obvious things everyone in the chess world knows, including the person I was responding to.
I'm hoping you want a reply here, or else I'm wasting my time ;-) I have found that letting others have the last word is both magnanimous and a great strategy for extracting myself from conversations with people I no longer wish to talk to. You seem like the kind of person who appreciates strategic thinking, which is why I thought you might enjoy that idea.
And in the current round of the World Cup (16 games featuring 32 of the strongest players in the world) at least 6, probably 7 games are decisive: 9 draws. classical chess is not quite dead.
At the amateur level, not much. Other than most amateurs spend way too much time relying on engine evals, and as a result don’t develop their own ability to learn “chess sense”.
Competitive players can now prepare easily for individual opponents, which is cool and used to only be feasible for pros.
For pros, it means that everyone plays the same safe openings, because they’re all “booked up” thanks to engines. Also many super sharp tactical lines have been conclusively decided by engines so can no longer be played. End result is world championships like the last one of all draws, which was just pathetic.
Most of the GMs I’ve asked about this in the last year have expressed that they no longer love playing classical chess because it’s so boring. Hence the rise of legit Chess960 and rapid tournaments at the top level.
Or that if a player offers to draw, and the other player declines and goes on to win, they shall be offered 2x points.
I do wonder though, in a drawn situation, can't one player push for a win if they are ahead on time, which one of the players is sure to be? Why would anyone accept a draw if they are ahead on time?
Are you suggesting that one player could win by running out the clock? Classical gives players 30 more seconds after each move so it becomes unlikely to run out the clock.
I've invented several chess variants, none any good except for one which allowed you to take your own pieces. Seemed pretty good. Inevitably it's been done before https://www.chessvariants.com/difftaking.dir/selfeliminator.... So there's my offer for a new variant.
Interestingly, though, chess computers have also shown that even at superhuman skill levels, decisive, exciting games are possible.
AlphaZero and Lc0 have played many beautiful games against Stockfish. All three of these engines are far stronger than the strongest grandmasters. That implies that the drawishness of classical chess has to do with the conservatism of top grandmasters, who generally aren't willing to play the dynamic, seemingly risky style of an AlphaZero or Lc0. You have to really trust your own intuition and calculating abilities to play in that style.
I agree, it’s not all just due to engines. Carlsen is usually known for a more intuitive playing style, versus Caruana who is basically at the most extreme end of conservative calculator. If Lc0 can inspire the Caruanas of the world to play with more panache, there would be much rejoicing.
I hear a lot of claims that 960 eliminates opening theory, but is that really the case?
I have no experience in the format, but I imagined that patterns would emerge (and Chess players are already good at spotting transpositions), and people would start studying a different form of opening theory.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Classical chess games tend to give players a lot of time. The world championship, for example, gives each player 90 minutes plus 30 seconds added after every move and an additional 30 minutes after move 40.
This is such a large amount of time, and the players get rest days with loads of time in between, that preparation becomes a huge factor. Players use top engines as well as databases (of every single move played by their opponent in tournament play) to cover every possible sharp line, leading to a lot of extremely safe (and correct) openings.
All of the above gets thrown out the window in the fast time controls (blitz and bullet). Players fall back on a mix of intuition and calculation and the games become highly dynamic, often with multiple opportunities for both sides (in a close match, rating-wise). Needless to say, it's a lot more fun to watch than a dozen draws in a row.
As an added point, the higher in rating you go, the more draws you see (against evenly matched opponents) at the classical time controls. This is because, while the rules of chess haven't changed with respect to what constitutes a draw, the number of draws by agreement goes way up. At the highest levels, there are many lines which can lead to a situation where neither player is willing to make even a slight concession to their position, thus they agree to a draw or a draw is forced by threefold repetition.
There's one interesting change I've noticed in chess and in a number of other fields where we seem to be gradually are losing that je ne sais pas we once had. This [1] is a film from 1925, "Chess Fever". For one bit of unspoken context, the smirking gentleman from the beginning (and the one that makes a few recurring appearances) is Jose Raul Capablanca - a person often considered the most naturally talented player ever and who was reigning world champ when this movie was released. Aside from the humor of the movie, I think there's something much more telling. The movie emphasizes chess as a game for adults, that kids can play.
That was published just following the advent of the USSR which would go on to become the world's powerhouse of chess for many decades, arguably continuing to this day. It seems in the west we've gradually started to reverse that adult-based focus for many things, chess among them: it's a game for kids, that adults can play. We've spent an immense amount of energy, and money, getting chess in schools but I'm not sure we've seen anything like a proportional gain in outcome for it.
For instance this [2] is the home page for the US Chess Federation. They chose of all possible pictures, for their lead image, one of an under 10 year old girl playing, and the strong bias towards scholastic/youth chess is present throughout. The only reason I mention this is because I imagine like many when I was a kid I was reached an age (still a kid) where I was gradually repelled by things I perceived as 'kid things' and drawn to things I perceived as 'adult things.' In my case coding was something I perceived as an adult thing, and that attraction ended up playing a monumental role in shaping my life. I'm quite curious if things would have been different had my school been actively attempting to get kids involved in coding.
I dunno, I feel like "the end of golden era of American chess" is pretty unfair to the amazing things Sinquefield has going on in St. Louis right now, as well as all of the "new" online resources that continue to pop up, and the general penetration chess seems to be achieving in scholastic formats today.
This article seems focused on a handful of luminaries, but I'd argue that a "golden era" of a thing is defined by it's blossoming into popularity and a new kind of explosive growth that thing hasn't previously seen, which (and maybe it's because I didn't grow up with Fischer) feels more like what's happening now.
I don't know if chess is more popular now than it's ever been in America (having read Pawn Sacrifice, I believe Fischer made chess fairly mainstream in America for a time), but it feels like more people are playing chess than ever before in the US, and that strikes me as more of a hallmark of a "golden era" than what this article refers to it as.
In a way you can compare it to the "Golden Age" of science fiction, which cemented the genre in our culture, but you can judge its classics on their own merits while also considering them in light of the new works produced in the decades after.
Pal Benko was one of the world's top grandmasters in the 1950s and 60s, playing in the Candidates Tournaments in 1959 and 1962 and notching up wins against the likes of Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal. He achieved that despite spending a year and a half in a Soviet concentration camp and defecting to the US in 1957.
Well clearly the new chess Masters are no longer players but programmers. That doesn't make the game uninteresting though.
A few months ago, one would have thought that we had the best algorithm and that progress would only be slowly incremental for now on... until the approach adopted to best humans at the game of go got applied to chess. Now you have these programs like LeelaChess able to best Stockfish (a program that had been improved over the last fifteen years) after a few months of training. There's definitely a lot more to discover in this game.
I don't know if programmers are the new game masters. As far as I know, bots are not allowed in most, if not all, chess competitions. It's not like we stopped doing the 100m dash after the intention of the bicycle or the car. Those are just other racing categories.
over the board chess can be a struggle for programmers because we are so used to letting computers do the heavy lifting on calculations that its a struggle to think through tactical situations when you know a simple program would do the trick. It's almost like doing pen and paper arithmetic in the age of calculators.
That is how I understand it as well. Blue Gene used heuristics such as rook = 5 and knight = 3 and there must be many more complex heuristics or direct approaches that you can use once your machine learning methods get enough computing power.
Yes, still it is astounding how far you can get with relatively simple heuristics and a well pruned search tree.
One interesting heuristic, which falls right out of "von Försters Imperative" is: Prefer moves that maximize the number of choices you have in the future, and minimize those of your opponent.
It's not clear what it means for a two-player game to be "easy for humans but hard for AI" -- but if you mean that humans can pretty easily beat AI, probably the way to go is a game of incomplete information. For example in hold'em poker, AI have only been able to beat humans in the last 1-2 years.
This game is played with chess pieces on a chess board... though they have different meanings.
Each player sets up their pieces in any way they want on the back two rows. The number of possible of possible starting positions for each player is 64,864,800. This means that the starting game position possibility is 4.2e15.
Next is the branching factor. Chess is about 35 possible moves each play for each player. Arimaa, each player makes two successive moves. This makes for a very large branching factor... 17,281 possible moves each turn ( http://arimaa.janzert.com/bf_study/ ). Go has a branching factor of 250.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity has a chart on it... Go has a larger board size and space state complexity, but Arimaa has a larger game tree size and branching factor.
That 35 and 17,281 thing... 35^8 ~= 17,000^3. If you have a computer program that can search all the possible moves 8 deep in chess (Deep Blue went 6-8 typically), it could only look 3 deep into Arimaa (a similar search space is 5 deep in Go).
Sure, a game where the rules can't be easily codified but understandable by humans would pose a good challenge. I'd like to see a computer play Calvinball :)
Probably no. The issue with tabletop games is that we can model them with ease. This allows bots to play myriads of games and the ability to look ahead in possible moves.
Humans still reign supreme (for now) at games which emphasize a heavy strategic component with a very large search space. For example, the OpenAI Five can only beat humans at DOTA with a very restricted scope (restricted champions and items).
That said, let’s be clear. The golden era of American chess, and chess in general, is happening now and only getting better. I give credit to to open-source projects like LiChess and Lc0, tournaments like LiChess Titled where mere mortals get a chance to challenge Magnus, and the rise of chess streaming as a thing.
Heck, I’ll concede that the golden era of classical chess is over. But it’s been over for a while, pretty much since computers advanced opening theory and took all the wins out of classical. RIP classical chess. But for those willing to think on their feet, the golden era of blitz and bullet is here :-)