Are top players not playing real chess these days? (compared to computers)

I am watching a TCEC game, and they threw out a Bf8 in the French Winawar. It got me thinking at first that this was strange. I hopped on here to check it out. The last time it was played was in 2019 by unrecognizable players. They are probably titled with their ratings, but I never heard of them.

So, maybe it can still be seen as odd, but the play isn't. For example. the computer might choose a move within .3 difference or if we are avoiding inaccuracies, say .15. The master players on the other hand might be giving less contempt. Reason being, they just need to draw, draw, draw, until their opponent goofs up in a match with one opponent. Even when you get to the top levels, the same could be happening.

While the computer is playing the best moves possible which in theory will lead to a draw, the human player plays inferior trick moves to catch the opponent off guard knowing they can still draw that position.

Is this laziness? Is this wise to do this? The 1500 and under crowd are probably trying to learn best moves, but maybe learning trick moves too would be useful?

@DoubleCheckTheMove said in #1:
> While the computer is playing the best moves possible which in theory will lead to a draw, the human player plays inferior trick moves to catch the opponent off guard knowing they can still draw that position.

Chess is not a solved game, which means no one can know if it's a draw or not.

That wasn't the intent of this thread. By claiming it might not be a draw just complicates the matter.

I am trying to delve into the aspects of playing like a computer vs. catching opponents off guard with inferior moves. If you want to provide arguments in addition that support chess might not be a draw, that's cool too. Would that also help to explain computer moves vs. catching opponents off guard?

This all seems rather misinformed...

@MrPushwood said in #4:
> This all seems rather misinformed...

What is misinformed? What position or views do you have? Do you think the top GMs are making the best moves and the computers are not there yet?

#1

In computer chess the opening books are quite long and extensive, and specifically designed to plumb offbeat and imbalanced positions in which a draw is less likely. Without being given the line in question, nor when the move was played, it seems likely that you are referring to a move that the engine has been forced to play.

@CoffehCat said in #6:
> #1
>
> In computer chess the opening books are quite long and extensive, and specifically designed to plumb offbeat and imbalanced positions in which a draw is less likely. Without being given the line in question, nor when the move was played, it seems likely that you are referring to a move that the engine has been forced to play.

Of course it was forced. I am not questioning that. And the specific line is still being played. The part that got my curiosity was from 4...Qd7.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 Bf8

Right now, LCZero is white and RubiChess has started it with that 4...Qd7 move. From there, I am sure we could get different variations. However, the computer after being forced this line has to do something. Without human intervention, isn't it picking off the top moves to make whereas the human might be doing more off the wall moves to confuse their opponent? For example, there is one with Anand and Caruana. It doesn't seem like those are the best moves they are making compared to a computer. I don't know, but I doubt the computer would be forced to make those moves. With an absence of a computer game that followed Anand and Caruana's game I can't negate that the computer wouldn't make a top engine move.

So, here is the game. You can put in "83KHngJf" to get their game on here. But here it is.

[Event "Superbet Blitz 2019"]
[Site "Bucharest ROU"]
[Date "2019.11.10"]
[Round "10.2"]
[White "Anand, V."]
[Black "Caruana, F."]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2757"]
[BlackElo "2822"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[ECO "C16"]
[Opening "French Defense: Winawer Variation, Petrosian Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 f5 6. Qg3 b6 7. Bd2 Nc6 8. Bb5 Bb7 9. a3 Bf8 10. Nf3 O-O-O 11. h4 Nh6

So, Qd7 is weird, Bf8 is weird but within reason according to the engine, and f5 by Caruana is considered inferior if not weird and bad. To a human, even a GM, maybe these inferior moves are good enough and not clear. To a 1500 and lower player, maybe they shouldn't be trying these things, correct?

At which point do we stop following the precision of the engine, consider moves like Qd7, Bf8, and f5? I can see from my playing, Qd7 would have to be a memorized pattern. Just do it and remember it. Bf8 is kind of the same, though I have seen it with the Zaitsev. So, it's a move that is not completely without reason but we can say not as common in the club level to 2000 probably. Then we get to f5. That's a bonkers of a move to a low rated player. Whoever is serious about that must have done their prep.

The assertion I am giving is the human GM did do their prep and figured if it doesn't catch the other GM off guard they can always get a draw and try again. The engine on the other hand probably wouldn't land on that move when it has other moves it sees as better. Even f6 (with an quick glance) is preferable.

Regardless of rating, 5...f5 (which the move 4...Qd7 has prepared) is second nature to players at any level who want to go for a closed carapace of a position which the player of White will find very hard to attack. To call it "bonkers" is to reveal a lack of understanding of the aims of the player of Black here. How the engine evaluates it is not really very interesting.

@Brian-E said in #8:
> How the engine evaluates it is not really very interesting.

That is what I am getting at. You saying it is second nature can be understood at higher ratings. You have a 2000+ rating and say you were active in 1980s. This clearly shows you are aged and have a high rating blindspot to those lower rated. NO, it is not second nature to lower rated players. You are incorrect about that. You could very well be correct it is second nature to higher rated players 2000+.

This is what I am pointing out and asking. At which point does it become second nature, because either I am under 1500 and don't see it as second nature, or I am 1500+ to say 1800 and don't see it as second nature. Perhaps, a 1650 would start to consider this.

The "not really very interesting" part also alludes to human emotion to play something different, which to a computer they don't use to determine. From the database on this line I see:

1732 beats 1588 as black
1093 beats 2404 as white ??? (1093 violated terms of service)
1716 beats 1141 as white
1675 beats 1797 as white (good indication where the move might make sense)
1565, 1636, and 1696 beats 1886, 1947, and 1787 as black

I used the filters of rapid and standard only. This indicates to me the under 1500 crowd is not using this f5 strategy to any extent.

Yes, I have heard of f5, and yes I would play that. I often do in QG lines when I feel white has no threats and I can pile on my pieces on the kingside. However, with this line, the last time I even saw Petrosian variation played was 2019 and then there is a drop to a 1976 Karpov game!!

So, you say second nature huh? Well, it's second nature for me to reject that at the moment until I see database results which state the opposite.

@DoubleCheckTheMove said in #9:
> [...]
> So, you say second nature huh? Well, it's second nature for me to reject that at the moment until I see database results which state the opposite.

I didn't express myself clearly enough.

I meant second nature to the type of player who plays that sort of position (and I stand by the statement that players of all ratings can be that type of player, though I accept that some experience is required so I don't mean beginners).

Further, I would gently suggest to you not to take too much notice of either computer evaluations of opening moves or database results. Openings should be played according to your style of play and, sometimes, against the opponent's style of play.