>
> About the universal path to mastery - if there is a universal algorithm (like used in alpha zero) that can be demonstrated, but yet the mind can not replicate the results of the machine, what are the implications of how the mind works?
I think this is a wonderful question. My very-partial answer would be that this discrepancy highlights some of the heuristics the mind relies on that have great utility for everyday contexts, but can be hindrances for a formal setting like chess. It's why I find the difference between "natural" moves and "computer moves" so fascinating: I'd love to know more about what makes a natural move seem natural from a perceptual, cognitive, and psychological standpoint.
Really interesting article. Thanks a lot for putting in the time to research and write this.
Thanks for the interesting article!
As someone with a bit of knowledge of Go, the fact, that in Go there was a jump when the first Go-engine defeated the best humans, while in chess there was no noticeable spike, might have a reason.
When AlphaGo came around, it showed players, that some of their conceptions of good opening sequences (Joseki) were slightly off. Usually that was not by a lot, the masters of the past got them down quite well. But some turned out to be slightly better or slightly worse than humans believed for decades or centuries (e.g. the early 3-3 invasion versus star point openings). And even if they are maybe just 1 point or so off, being 1 point off a handful of times during the game can lead to an advantage, that professional players can convert to an advantage.
In chess however, the changes to high-end opening preparation were less drastic. Some variations might have fallen out of favour, but rarely did highly regarded openings completely disappear or completely new ones arrive out of nowhere. A Najdorf Sicilian or a closed Ruy Lopez were solid opening before and they still are after. The specifics in deep preparation might have changed, but at some point even super GMs come out of book and have to play the game instead of relying on computer assisted preparation.
What an interesting and well-crafted article. Thanks for your efforts.
But let us not forget one thing: the Hippopotamus Opening is a lovely fresh spring for chess! The hedgehog moved us in the right direction and now the Hippopotamus (long may it reign) guides us toward the future, unerringly, like a a lover's cigarette glow in a dark room, or like the fine aroma of Texas barbecue wafting across a sunlit, summer field.
Let me be clear, however, that I am not promoting the use of tobacco. To the contrary, when it comes to smoking, I "just say no." But I would never try to control the behavior of one I loved, even for a moment.
And as I love the Hippopotamus, I would never try to rush it nor expand beyond it when it is not yet ready to expand.
I use the AI to explain the data collected by my chess cockpit from the inside of stockfish (classical and dynamic evaluation with SF 15.1). Very interesting is the interpretation of NNUE difference values.
https://www.amazon.de/Chess-Thinking-Age-Engines-Understanding-ebook/dp/B0GSH54B9F
What has been brought to us by Stockfish and other engines? I think my first idea is the advance of the pawns a2 and h2 to a4 and h4. These are typical engine moves.
In order to be objective we need several more metrics than just elo. Tempo, tactical measures and positional context. Engines measure those differently from humans.
Thank you for an interesting article which provides a lot of food for thought.
I know very little about go, but believe that there is one significant difference compared to chess, namely that draws are very frequent in chess and occur in case of perfect play. Perfect moves in the openings often lead to well-explored mainlines, and thus often lead to draws at the highest level. This means that to win a lot of games against strong grandmasters, top players often need to take risks to bring the game to an unexplored territory where both sides are likely to err and the stronger player (on that day) is more likely to prevail.
At some point I was in top 20 in the world, now I am out of top 100 in live ratings, although my precision rate is rather higher than before. So there is surely some progress in top chess.
Say, this line was considered promising for White some 10 years ago and I won 2 nice games with it (one classical, one rapid) some time ago: https://lichess.org/broadcast/gm-felix-blohberger-vs-gm-david-navara/round-2/3SczIbpq/3DfNiCqw
Nowadays prepared opponents know how to neutralize White's mild strategic initiative.
Given that, in round 4 of the above-mentioned match I went for a sideline and it lead to a crazy game: https://lichess.org/broadcast/gm-felix-blohberger-vs-gm-david-navara/round-4/Gu7EYd1U#boards
It was an incredibly complex game which almost inevitably contained some big mistakes, but many more high-level moves than the correct draw above, where the good moves were mostly easy to find or far from forced.
That said, even sidelines are often well-explored and there are solid ways to equalize with Black: https://lichess.org/broadcast/prague-chess-festival-masters/round-3/wtNGbrtZ/dPsm7J6X
Recently I made 11 draws out of 11 games in Czech Extraliga (Extraleague) 2025/2026, including 5 practically flawless draws, not necessarily boring. Say, this is surely not a boring draw, but the opponent knew the line better than I did: https://lichess.org/broadcast/sachycz-extraliga-20252026/round-10/Qy8JCqLN/bQTwot3J
Playing good solid chess is often no longer enough to score high nowadays.
The leading young players are good at finding fighting lines, take risks and their games are very interesting to watch. That said, it is a bit less fun when you are over 40, the good chess which was likely to bring you a lot of success 10 years ago brings you too many draws nowadays and the amount of the opening theory is so big that even avoiding drawish or insipid lines with White is not always easy.
I do not want to sound too pessimistic, you can play very interesting games when your opponents are also ambitious, and my games from the recent Prague Masters tournament witness that: https://lichess.org/broadcast/prague-international-chess-festival-2026-masters/round-5/KoV4BlPM/hNXat1KD
https://lichess.org/broadcast/prague-international-chess-festival-2026-masters/round-9/FX8Oc5bv/WHoNGeti
(I am sorry for quoting so many games, but they illustrate my points.)
Magnus Carlsen reached his peak rating at the period when he was acquainted with AlphaZero but the other players still were not. His games from that period are impressive regardless of the metrics like accuracy. I have also learned quite something from AlphaZero's games, but so did almost everyone around me, so there was no competitive advantage anymore.
So, what happened to the Nile?
@centavrvs said [^](/forum/redirect/post/qv9Y45sj)
> So, what happened to the Nile?
@NDpatzer ?