The Beautiful Bad Move

[Geoff Chandler]

You know I rabbit on all the time about what computers show you and what is hidden
because they do not deem it worthy to show or even consider.
And how often it is these very human lines that it tucks away that are instructive
regarding how humans think.

When we get them thinking cheapo and counter cheapo, anticipating bad but human type moves
then we will have a machine that will be of some good.
(maybe display in bright red what it considers is a human sneaky pete move with it's fun analysis)

Basically a machine that spots and invents traps and instead of this 1.56 nonsense.

it can display them using coloured skulls.

Yellow - a blitz/skittles try.
Green - Go for it if you feel Lucky
Blue - Plausible, an average human will blunder in the calculation.
Red - 99% chance the human will miss it.

Or something like that.

You cannot win unless an opponent blunders.
Currently when these things look at positions they are looking for the best move from each side.
It is not looking at what possible tricks an opponent may play v you even if it carries a red skull rating.

An example from a recent 5/0 on Gameknot where I go by the name of Kid Zebra (thank you J.Rowson.)

I'm White and after these blitz'd out opening moves. (from memory but the critical position is coorect.)

[pgn]1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Qe2 a6 5. Bxd7+ Nxd7 6. O-O Ngf6 7. c4 e6
8. Rd1 Be7 9. d4 O-O 10. e5 Ne8 11. exd6 Bxd6 12. dxc5 Bxc5[/pgn]*

we reach here:

[pos]r2qnrk1/1p1n1ppp/p3p3/2b5/2P5/5N2/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 w - - 0 13[/pos]












And I have a quick think. 13.Ng5

[pos]r2qnrk1/1p1n1ppp/p3p3/2b3N1/2P5/8/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 b - - 0 13[/pos]












That is Chandler in full cheapo blitz mode. (Infact knowing me I'd most likely play it anywhere.)
Threat Qd3 hitting h7 and the pinned Knight (the source of the idea) on d7.

Don't go any further, what would you as Black play here. Have a wee think.
I bet you 13.Ng5 won't be spat out by any computer and I'm 100% sure Black's reply....



(answer coming....)



13...Bb4!@

[pos]r2qnrk1/1p1n1ppp/p3p3/6N1/1bP5/8/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 w - - 0 14[/pos]












Won't be either.
(the !@ symbol means it's a beautiful bad move...Lots of players lose to beautiful bad moves)

What a wonderful human move played after about 30 seconds thought.

It's a counter cheapo, a human v human move. Mr Fox meets Mr Crafty.

A computer would not go nowhere this position and it is these ideas that these things
cannot and do not show.

OK it's a crude example but I wonder how many complicated and wonderful variations which though
unsound and would tax even the best players to find a refuatation with a clock ticking these things
have tucked away.

[pos]r2qnrk1/1p1n1ppp/p3p3/6N1/1bP5/8/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 w - - 0 14[/pos]












White can win a pawn, chop the Queens and end up with a Rook on the 7th. End Kid Zebra's of analysis.

So the game continues....(use the wee arrows things to move the bits.)

[pgn][FEN "r2qnrk1/1p1n1ppp/p3p3/6N1/1bP5/8/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 w - - 0 14"]

14. Qd3 Nef6 {I'd like to think if this was a real game I'd stop mid-combo and play the counter-counter cheapo 15.a3 here which ruins Black wee scam.} 15. Nxh7 Nxh7 16. Qxd7 {And the moment I played this I went 'booger' I've been done!} 16... Qxd7 17. Rxd7 Rfd8[/pgn]

[pos]r2r2k1/1p1R1ppn/p3p3/8/1bP5/8/PP3PPP/RNB3K1 w - - 0 18[/pos]












Three choices.

18.Rxd8 Rxd8 and thanks to my weak back rank and his 13...Bb4 (see the idea now) I lose a piece.

18.Rd2 (best) and I drop the exchange.

18 Resigns, the chosen option.
You don't play on the exchange down trying to win on time, that is cry baby win at all costs chess.
Just let it go. You won't die.

It's not all that often I get done like that. Usually I lose because I over sac or just play bad.
So that is what it feels like to be cheaped. It's not too bad, why do you guys make such fuss over it?

All we need is one of you chaps with the latest toy to verify that my Ng5 and his Bb4 are not
in the computers hit parade and show up in the top 3 (or top 5.....top 10.....top 20?)

And then give me tel number of the the Fritz HQ so I can tell them were they are going wrong.

[Andrew McHarg]

I see you are a determined anti-engine type of player. ;P

Fun looking game though Geoff.

But are we more interested in fun Chess or good Chess? And is good not also fun? I mean, you say that Fritz wouldn't fall into such cheapos, but neither would the best human players in the world (or at least very very rarely). Computers could be programmed to look for cheapos like that too, but that would make them weaker players technically.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Andy

"But are we more interested in fun Chess or good Chess?"

Practical Chess.

We are not talking about the best players in the world.
We are talking about the under 2000 players who are sold these things on the pretence
it will give them a better understanding of the game.
They do more harm than good.

They leave huge gaps in a players development.
They shoot a players 3d vision to hell.
The player starts to fail recognise a human blunder.
They have no memory hook like a written note in a book can give.

"Computers could be programmed to look for cheapos like that too..."

Could they? I don't think so, not yet anyway.

If they could be made to play more like a human then could be more useful.

Using them to analyse what opening you may play is totally pointless.

Take a position we know, switch off the computers book then input this position.

[pos]r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 4[/pos]












It won't play b4 as White, it won't even suggest it.
Yet we both know how tricky 4.b4 can be and it's been a relatively succesful human move for 170 years.

So if chummy is looking at a fresh position and hidden within is a shot only half as tricky as 4.b4
it won't suggest it. The human under 2000 won't suspect nothing till his human opponent plays it OTB.

Like all good Scottish Juniors I bet you can mate with a Bishop & Knight.
Good. (you will most likely get to use this once every 40 years - I'm still waiting my turn.)

Do it v a computer and it's a piece of cake.
Do it v a wriggling human and you will still do it, but it won't be as easy.
Humans very often in all aspects of the game do not play the best moves, they play the move
that gives them the best practical chance.
A computer does not understand what that is.

[Andrew McHarg]

Oh I know what you mean Geoff. I've been in some positions OTB where if I had from that point followed computer suggestions then I would have certainly lost, whereas playing the moves I played made it more likely my opponent would mess it up. That comes under your definition of "practical", I should think. 8)

Totally agree with you on that point.

But I don't agree that computers have done more harm than good from a training perspective on the whole. It depends how they are used. I mean, if someone looks through their games exlusively with a computer and doesn't do any work on it themselves then yes, this probably won't make them a better player. But I really think the people who do that probably know this anyway. They are more curious about whether they missed something or not, or whether their game was technically drawn/won/lost etc.

You suggest that the promising juniors around the 2200 level are not becoming titled players because they are too reliant on computers. But I would suggest that the average quality of players has increased since the introduction of computers. Perhaps it's harder to become a GM now than it ever has been, because the quality of opposition is higher per grading point? Or perhaps not. In any case, I really doubt computers are the reason for it. Used correctly as part of a balanced diet, computers are more likely to make players stronger.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Andy.

"You suggest that the promising juniors around the 2200 level are not becoming titled
players because they are too reliant on computers. "

Just trying to get a handle on why the titles have dried up and the players seem to stick
just under the IM level.

What has been the biggest change since the days of Bryson, Muir, McNab, Mannion, Motwani, Condie,
McKay, Shaw...

I can only see the influence of computers on the game. What else is there?

These days there are more opportunities to get a title, there are more tournaments, travel is easier,
The planet is flooded with GM's (last count 1,437 - in the 70's there were about 100.) there are
3,301 IM's out there so getting the chance to take scalp has gone up.

Figures from FIDE.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?tops=0&ina=2&country=">http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?to ... 2&country=</a><!-- m -->

Our lads show promise, sparkle and ambition...suddenly when they get good they stay there.

England has 35 GM's and 57 IM's. So what are England doing right that Scotland is doing wrong.

A smaller population - Iceland has 12 GM's and 13 IM's.
We don't get funding. Iran a country where chess until recently was banned has 8 GM's and 13 IM's.
Scotland has 6 GM's and 9 IM's three are in their 30's, the rest are over 40.

You reckon that players use the box only out curiousity to see whether they has missed something.
I'm of the opinion it's the first thing they do without looking at the game first themselves.
The curiousity and been replaced with sheer laziness and the deserted analysis room I have seen bear this out.
I remember in the 70's and 80's the cleaners had to throw the players out of the anlaysis rooms because
they were still there looking at their games.

[Mike Scott]

I hate to disagree with you Geoff (so I lied - sue me or call the standards committee!) but if computers were to blame for our recent mediocre performance then that would suggest that we have greater access to the silicon beasts than other more successful countries.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Mike

I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing wth me.

These lads are hitting a brick wall.
We do not appear to have anyone can who teach our lads how to get the best out of these things.
All they have is the glossy manuel telling them what wonderful chess players they will become.

All the current titled players - those that have crossed the hurdle - got good before
computers. So it's no use calling on them.

Everyone acknowledges there is gap, something is lacking.
I'm not one to stand around with my thumb up my bum. So let's get it sorted.
If it's not the use and abuse of computers then what is it?
I'm open to any ideas. I'm fed up going on about it as much as you are fed up listening to it.

I'm trying to kick a few butts back into the bedroom with a book and board because I know that works.
You do not need a computer helping you in anyway at all to become a good chess player.
History is on my side with this and so is the present. (the future...all I can see is Roddy McKay
winning the Scottish title again when he 71, then again at 81 and 91...)

How did Roddy McKay get so good?
Rampant Chess page 157. Roddy McKay: Favourite Book: Golden Treasury of Chess.

That book is just a collection of games with no notes.
You play through the games and any questions - well you have dig in and find them out for yourself.
It called studying chess. You just have to keep asking yourself why?...why?...why?,,,and why?
It's not going to be easy, there is no quick fix in chess, that is what you are looking for using a computer.

And if you cannot figure out why a move was played. Then this is what this forum is for.
There are a crowd of good players who frequent this place that enjoy explaining things.
You will get a human answer from an experienced player and not just a silent and cold 1.89.
But go for it by yourself first, and even suggest why you think it was played.

Comng soon:
Rampant Chess II - 13 players who never made it to IM.
First question: What is your favourite computer?

Look I'll help. go here.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gambitchess.com/semi/dbbooks.htm">http://www.gambitchess.com/semi/dbbooks.htm</a><!-- m -->

You can download either editions of Golden Treasury - print one out and off you go.

The password (it seems to fit all the books is) qcIG7@3wmFt

It a no hassle site - just a quick download. You don't have to sign up for anything.

You get just the games used (no notes) in all of them books.
No copyright is being infringed, chess games (unfortunatley) are not copyright, just the written word.
You can only get the games - nothing more. no notes.

(I say unfortunately because to me it's a sin that a game like Nigel Short's King walk v Timman which has
brought pleasure to so many and the player who created that masterpiece does not get a single
cent for it if say a clown like me publishes it and rakes in the money. This is wrong. This so wrong.)

So Mike, all I'm trying to do is address a problem with the lads.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
But will they admit that perhaps, just perhaps......I might be a tad correct.

[Jim Webster]

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing.......... or with whom......

computers are great for doing analysis and post mortems but.....
they never tell you HOW they arrived at their assessment. Computers don't teach you how to analyse they do it purely on crunching numbers through a mathematical algorithm and make decisions based on the answer to the math.

It's not for the first time I've put a game in, and on seeing the analysis thought "I would never have found that move over the board" so my computer is relegated to collecting games and creating databases along with the occasional video tutorial even that but doesn't help my grade get any better.

oh well...... back to the spare room, books, board and the all to rare "pub analysis room" with not a computer in sight.

[Andrew McHarg]

I do know what Geoff means. It appears impossible to argue with Mike's point though?

Jim's post backs up my point that most people use engines out of curiosity for what they might have missed. That's all I have ever used an engine for as far as analysing my games is concerned. But I'll take Geoff's point and not put the computer on until I am at least exhausted looking through my games myself. Let's see in the new season what difference this approach makes to my play (grade). 8)

[Alan Jelfs]

Another point to consider is a major difference between "the good old days" and now - the now ubiquitous quickplay finish in league chess.
Back in the day, there were adjournments and adjudications, so the emphasis was on finding the best move/position. Nowadays, the 2100-2300 players know they can outplay us mere mortals in a quickplay finish and so just need to find "good enough" moves.
Hopefully, as increments become more widely adopted, there will be a return to finding the best move without worrying about the clock.