Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is Chess Really Just Theory? Or Is It Art?

"Let's see you play when your king starts on g1 and your knights are on the corners"

  • That is impossible: in Fischer Random the king is always between the rooks to allow castling, so with a king on g1, there should be a rook on h1.
"Let's see you play when your king starts on g1 and your knights are on the corners" * That is impossible: in Fischer Random the king is always between the rooks to allow castling, so with a king on g1, there should be a rook on h1.

#Blog

I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish.

#Blog I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish.

@tpr said ^

"Let's see you play when your king starts on g1 and your knights are on the corners"

  • That is impossible: in Fischer Random the king is always between the rooks to allow castling, so with a king on g1, there should be a rook on h1.

Don't worry, I changed it a bit.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/1sbSZCya) > "Let's see you play when your king starts on g1 and your knights are on the corners" > * That is impossible: in Fischer Random the king is always between the rooks to allow castling, so with a king on g1, there should be a rook on h1. Don't worry, I changed it a bit.

@IamNOTamod said ^

#Blog

I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish.

And we shouldn't be. We are unique in chess; we have different styles, different motives, different goals (though it'll probably be becoming a GM for most), and we know how to psychologically attack our opponent during the game, not just by playing the best moves. When Legendary Grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost against Deep Blue, he famously stated: "I lost my fighting spirit", and he realized that now that computers are taking over chess, he started to question whether it even is the same game that he had known. Now I know that we still need Stockfish to help us know our mistakes, help us learn what things we have done wrong and what we should've done to improve better in the next game. But sadly, people are already using it too much. They don't even analyze it themselves anymore. They just use Stockfish, see what they did, and done. That's why I created this blog. The realizations hit me like a thought that couldn't get out of my mind. We live in the computer age, yes, but we also have to bring back some traditional parts of chess, at least.

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/t92mN0IH) > #Blog > > > I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish. And we shouldn't be. We are unique in chess; we have different styles, different motives, different goals (though it'll probably be becoming a GM for most), and we know how to psychologically attack our opponent during the game, not just by playing the best moves. When Legendary Grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost against Deep Blue, he famously stated: "I lost my fighting spirit", and he realized that now that computers are taking over chess, he started to question whether it even is the same game that he had known. Now I know that we still need Stockfish to help us know our mistakes, help us learn what things we have done wrong and what we should've done to improve better in the next game. But sadly, people are already using it too much. They don't even analyze it themselves anymore. They just use Stockfish, see what they did, and done. That's why I created this blog. The realizations hit me like a thought that couldn't get out of my mind. We live in the computer age, yes, but we also have to bring back some traditional parts of chess, at least.

@francisludwigii said ^

#Blog

I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish.

And we shouldn't be. We are unique in chess; we have different styles, different motives, different goals (though it'll probably be becoming a GM for most), and we know how to psychologically attack our opponent during the game, not just by playing the best moves. When Legendary Grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost against Deep Blue, he famously stated: "I lost my fighting spirit", and he realized that now that computers are taking over chess, he started to question whether it even is the same game that he had known. Now I know that we still need Stockfish to help us know our mistakes, help us learn what things we have done wrong and what we should've done to improve better in the next game. But sadly, people are already using it too much. They don't even analyze it themselves anymore. They just use Stockfish, see what they did, and done. That's why I created this blog. The realizations hit me like a thought that couldn't get out of my mind. We live in the computer age, yes, but we also have to bring back some traditional parts of chess, at least.

Thats too true

@francisludwigii said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GIMhBHuG) > > #Blog > > > > > > I agree...that we humans aren't Stockfish. > > And we shouldn't be. We are unique in chess; we have different styles, different motives, different goals (though it'll probably be becoming a GM for most), and we know how to psychologically attack our opponent during the game, not just by playing the best moves. When Legendary Grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost against Deep Blue, he famously stated: "I lost my fighting spirit", and he realized that now that computers are taking over chess, he started to question whether it even is the same game that he had known. Now I know that we still need Stockfish to help us know our mistakes, help us learn what things we have done wrong and what we should've done to improve better in the next game. But sadly, people are already using it too much. They don't even analyze it themselves anymore. They just use Stockfish, see what they did, and done. That's why I created this blog. The realizations hit me like a thought that couldn't get out of my mind. We live in the computer age, yes, but we also have to bring back some traditional parts of chess, at least. Thats too true

Engines didn't kill creativity. Engines are just a tool. And a really good one. If you know how to use it you can discover so many ideas no human mind would ever venture to. Look no further than 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Ne7 — The Leela Gambit. Or 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nh3 Bb4 5. Bd3 f5 6. exf5 Bxg2 7. Rg1. Or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Qh5. I could go on and on. The point is engines are like AI, if you can use it correctly, it will enhance your creativity, endgame knowledge, or whatever it is connected to chess you want to imrove at.

The problem is the instant evaluation. Just like generative AI giving humans a way to do something difficult very easily is not a great idea. I mean think how would work with the engine work if it didn't evaluate positions, just gave you the best move. I'll show a real life example.

My opponent prepared against me the engine best line against the Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Ne5 c6 7. Bc4 e6 8. g4 Bg6 9. h4 Nbd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. h5 Be4 12. O-O Bd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. Bd3 Bd6 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. c3 and the position was 0.0 3 moves after. After the game I told thim that the position is very complex and it's not enough to just know the line, you have tu understand the position aswell and he asnwered "but the engine says 0.7". He chose that exact position only bacause the engine gave him an instant eval of 0.7.

Now imagine what would happen if it gave him only the best moves. He would arrive at the same position, but wouldn't know anything about it. Is it winning? Is it equal? What's the next move? Plan? Nothing. He would have to put some thought into the position and decide if he wants to play it.

Another time I played a CM and we got this 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. Be3 a6 8. Bb6 axb5 9. Nxb5 Bb4+ 10. c3 Ba5 11. Nd6+ Kf8 12. Bc5 b6 13. Be3 b5 he told me he looked at b6–b5 and thought he will "figure it out". Now imagine you don't know the eval. You are up a piece for a pawn, but White has massive compensation on the dark-squares. You wouldn't say "Oh let me go for this. I'll think of something at the board."

And now that I write it, it might be an interesting experiement to analyze the game with the best moves, but without the eval, so it would be like re-solving the position, but with a hint.

Oh and if you really want to avoid theory against 1.e4 King's Gambit is one of the most theoretical openings out there. You can try this tho:

https://lichess.org/study/9ECMlXYE/kvW4z5Dy#0

If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5.

Engines didn't kill creativity. Engines are just a tool. And a really good one. If you know how to use it you can discover so many ideas no human mind would ever venture to. Look no further than 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Ne7 — The Leela Gambit. Or 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nh3 Bb4 5. Bd3 f5 6. exf5 Bxg2 7. Rg1. Or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Qh5. I could go on and on. The point is engines are like AI, if you can use it correctly, it will enhance your creativity, endgame knowledge, or whatever it is connected to chess you want to imrove at. The problem is the instant evaluation. Just like generative AI giving humans a way to do something difficult very easily is not a great idea. I mean think how would work with the engine work if it didn't evaluate positions, just gave you the best move. I'll show a real life example. My opponent prepared against me the engine best line against the Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Ne5 c6 7. Bc4 e6 8. g4 Bg6 9. h4 Nbd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. h5 Be4 12. O-O Bd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. Bd3 Bd6 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. c3 and the position was 0.0 3 moves after. After the game I told thim that the position is very complex and it's not enough to just know the line, you have tu understand the position aswell and he asnwered "but the engine says 0.7". He chose that exact position only bacause the engine gave him an instant eval of 0.7. Now imagine what would happen if it gave him only the best moves. He would arrive at the same position, but wouldn't know anything about it. Is it winning? Is it equal? What's the next move? Plan? Nothing. He would have to put some thought into the position and decide if he wants to play it. Another time I played a CM and we got this 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. Be3 a6 8. Bb6 axb5 9. Nxb5 Bb4+ 10. c3 Ba5 11. Nd6+ Kf8 12. Bc5 b6 13. Be3 b5 he told me he looked at b6–b5 and thought he will "figure it out". Now imagine you don't know the eval. You are up a piece for a pawn, but White has massive compensation on the dark-squares. You wouldn't say "Oh let me go for this. I'll think of something at the board." And now that I write it, it might be an interesting experiement to analyze the game with the best moves, but without the eval, so it would be like re-solving the position, but with a hint. Oh and if you really want to avoid theory against 1.e4 King's Gambit is one of the most theoretical openings out there. You can try this tho: https://lichess.org/study/9ECMlXYE/kvW4z5Dy#0 If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5.

"If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5."

  • There are plenty of ways
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4 is playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 3 Nxe5 Qe7 is playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 is borderline playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 is borderline playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 b6 is playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6 is playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 is playable
"If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5." * There are plenty of ways 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4 is playable 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 3 Nxe5 Qe7 is playable 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 is borderline playable 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 is borderline playable 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 b6 is playable 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6 is playable 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 is playable

@tpr said ^

"If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5."

  • There are plenty of ways
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4 is playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 3 Nxe5 Qe7 is playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 is borderline playable
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 is borderline playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 b6 is playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6 is playable
    1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 is playable

Ye ofc, you can go away from main paths in main openings, I was saying that in general. That gambit in the Petrov scores very well, but my main point is if you play the O'Kelly Sicilian for example, you must be ready for Alapin, Smith-Morra, Closed with g3, GPA, and the Open Sicilian. Even if you play O'Kelly you have to know open sicilians in case White plaus 3.Nc3.

  • when you step off main paths you have to do so for a good reason It's possible, I like your c5–b6 and that gambit, but the Damiano Defence makes no sense, cuz if White plays a natural Bc4 you get a horrible position for nothing. It's just easier to play like a Pirc, or the Scandi, or the Alekhine in my opinion
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vsEfIFof) > "If you want to avoid theory against 1.e4 just don't play e5 or c5." > * There are plenty of ways > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4 is playable > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 3 Nxe5 Qe7 is playable > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 is borderline playable > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 is borderline playable > 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 b6 is playable > 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6 is playable > 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 is playable Ye ofc, you can go away from main paths in main openings, I was saying that in general. That gambit in the Petrov scores very well, but my main point is if you play the O'Kelly Sicilian for example, you must be ready for Alapin, Smith-Morra, Closed with g3, GPA, and the Open Sicilian. Even if you play O'Kelly you have to know open sicilians in case White plaus 3.Nc3. + when you step off main paths you have to do so for a good reason It's possible, I like your c5–b6 and that gambit, but the Damiano Defence makes no sense, cuz if White plays a natural Bc4 you get a horrible position for nothing. It's just easier to play like a Pirc, or the Scandi, or the Alekhine in my opinion

@FrancisLudwigII said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/francisludwigii/blog/is-chess-really-just-theory-or-is-it-art/DuOygesc

I agree with the overall sentiment but playing moves that you don't understand just to confuse your opponent is foolish most of the times, as Fischer said "The only thing which matters in chess is good moves" , so incorporating dubious openings like hillbilly attack ain't gonna cut it and also to break the rules you have to master the rule.

@FrancisLudwigII said [^](/forum/redirect/post/uORX8AAZ) > Comments on https://lichess.org/@/francisludwigii/blog/is-chess-really-just-theory-or-is-it-art/DuOygesc I agree with the overall sentiment but playing moves that you don't understand just to confuse your opponent is foolish most of the times, as Fischer said "The only thing which matters in chess is good moves" , so incorporating dubious openings like hillbilly attack ain't gonna cut it and also to break the rules you have to master the rule.