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

@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.
>

@Youcandothis said in #2:
> Chess is not a solved game, which means no one can know if it's a draw or not.

If chess is a draw then 100% of engine vs engine games will be a draw!!!

To the initial question my answer is yes, top players are playing real chess compared to computers. Maybe we should ask ourselves, What is real chess? Rudolf Spielmann wrote in The Art of Sacrifice in Chess: "A game of chess is not a mathematical problem, but a contest full of life". Mikhail Botvinnik used to say he often made not the strongest move in a given position, but the most consistent move with the system proposed in the opening. GM Roman Dzindzichashvili also defends the idea of making those moves which will allow us to reach completely playable positions.

Watching ? @DoubleCheckTheMove ? I would think you would be Playing Over at least a few games a day Double Checking The Moves No ?

@Brian-E said in #10:
> 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.

Play the position, not the style.

"I accept that some experience is required so I don't mean beginners"

Thank you for finally admitting that. The next question then is, when do they stop being "beginners"? The assertion that players of all ratings have a style is like saying all caterpillars have the potential of becoming a butterfly, tadpole a frog, or is it like a bat becoming Dracula? I am not here to debate that. There is a saying, address the message not the messenger.

So, when I see a tutorial on the f5 including this French Petrosian line then I will be more than happy to include it in my repetoire once I understand the whys. Because that's my "style". I don't believe people have styles. They have understandings.

I know when I play my f pawn as white in a Sicilian where I have castled short as white, I can run into problems especially if the DSB is still on the board. There is also the Schliemann defense of the Ruy Lopez. This f5 has come up over the years, not as often as the KGA Muzio Gambit, but perhaps that f5 and the French f5 have similar goals.

Not ready to accept this mystery answer that it is due to style. As I stated before, play the position not the style. And understand why.

@Professor74 said in #12:
> Mikhail Botvinnik used to say he often made not the strongest move in a given position, but the most consistent move with the system proposed in the opening.

Well, that is a great saying for his time. There is no way that man could have known the strongest move in a given position. Looking at his history, he started an interest in computer chess and was world champion between 1948 to 1958. This is a bit like Carlsen preparing and using Sesse while staying champion for 10 years. The difference I think is Magnus had a larger team and could "trust" the advice of his peers. Botvinnik on the other hand was a pioneer. He had to project conclusions, right or wrong, based on his own play. I see there were a number of people who disagreed with him when looking into his work with chess programming.

The reference of "consistent move" indicates he did in fact use a database of games to prepare against an opponent. Otherwise, he wouldn't have needed to find any consistency. When you play a computer and a lower level, they just randomly play terrible moves eventually. They are not even trying to draw. And this makes sense that he used a database, if this guy is throwing out ideas for computer chess while being champion, when does this guy eat, drink, and sleep? He definitely wasn't looking for a juicer while streaming on Twitch.

Anyway, I got derailed, and I had to look up the guy. The funny thing is they actually have a recorded person in history as the first GM to lose to a computer, Arnold Denker. Like, how are they going to confirm he made the best moves he could have? "My style was to play 35 moves, then blunder."

> GM Roman Dzindzichashvili also defends the idea of making those moves which will allow us to reach completely playable positions.

That is true of any play that leads to a three result game. I am not sure he is breaking any ground there. I feel that maybe he was trying to play poker but got confused which hall he was in.

@DoubleCheckTheMove said in #14:
> Play the position, not the style.
> [...]
You're entitled to that opinion, obviously. And some players have a playing style which is so versatile that they perform well in all types of game. But for most players I would advise differently. "Know thyself" and play accordingly to get good results would be my recipe for competitive success.

> [...]
> I know when I play my f pawn as white in a Sicilian where I have castled short as white, I can run into problems especially if the DSB is still on the board. There is also the Schliemann defense of the Ruy Lopez. This f5 has come up over the years, not as often as the KGA Muzio Gambit, but perhaps that f5 and the French f5 have similar goals.

No, ...f5 in the French, certainly in the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 f5 which you gave in that Anand-Caruana, bears no relation whatsoever to ...f5 in those other openings. Specifically, it closes the position (assuming White does not reply 6.exf6 which presents Black with an extra tempo in development after 6...Nxf6 and gives Black little trouble). Whereas ...f5 in openings like the Ruy Lopez or the King's Gambit go for a wide open position. It could not be more dissimilar.
> [...]

@Brian-E said in #16:

> No, ...f5 in the French, certainly in the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 f5 which you gave in that Anand-Caruana, bears no relation whatsoever to ...f5 in those other openings. Specifically, it closes the position (assuming White does not reply 6.exf6 which presents Black with an extra tempo in development after 6...Nxf6 and gives Black little trouble). Whereas ...f5 in openings like the Ruy Lopez or the King's Gambit go for a wide open position. It could not be more dissimilar.

You are the one saying style. I see f5 as opening in both cases. I don't see how it closes things. Is a contact lens concave or convex? Peter Leko had a similar question during a Tata Steel event. I think it was commentary with Fiona Steil-Antoni. It may have been a Sicilian with a d4 or d5.

The point is, if white plays 6. exf6 (en passant), that looks open to me. I don't see it as closed.

@DoubleCheckTheMove said in #17:
> You are the one saying style. I see f5 as opening in both cases. I don't see how it closes things. Is a contact lens concave or convex? Peter Leko had a similar question during a Tata Steel event. I think it was commentary with Fiona Steil-Antoni. It may have been a Sicilian with a d4 or d5.
>
> The point is, if white plays 6. exf6 (en passant), that looks open to me. I don't see it as closed.

Hmm, good question, is a contact lens concave or convex? Maybe it depends on whether you're even bothering to look through it and read what the person you are responding to has written. I took the trouble to mention 6.exf6 with the preface "assuming White does not reply..." when mentioning that ...f5 closes the position in that French line. And you even did me the courtesy of quoting me accurately on that, too.

@Brian-E said in #10:
> 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.

Marvelous! Every day I note with sadness that chess players evaluate their positions by only looking at engine.

@Professor74 said in #12:
> To the initial question my answer is yes, top players are playing real chess compared to computers. Maybe we should ask ourselves, What is real chess? Rudolf Spielmann wrote in The Art of Sacrifice in Chess: "A game of chess is not a mathematical problem, but a contest full of life". Mikhail Botvinnik used to say he often made not the strongest move in a given position, but the most consistent move with the system proposed in the opening. GM Roman Dzindzichashvili also defends the idea of making those moves which will allow us to reach completely playable positions.

Quite clear and valid to this day. Thanks @Professor74

I always felt wins should be 1.5pts to lower the value of draws to keep players from intentionally trying to draw. Also, above 1800 checkmates or resigning before move 21 should be 2pts.

As far as computer evals if you hav 2 or 3 move possibilities within .2 of each other choose the one that fits best with your playstyle and strategy especially the following moves. See what it looks like 3 moves later. You will remember it better. On chess.com I've had 3 move checkmates the computer didn't even recognize in top 3. But these evals assume following opponent moves.

Especially below 1600 opponents can play anything at any time. Knowing positions and improving calculation are far more valuable than drafting engine variations though they can give ideas.

Knowing and preparing for the most played replies to moves is better than .2 difference on moves especially early.

But still move 7.Ne5 could be 1st most played @ 72% and Qb6 only 1%...... and opponent plays Qb6. So that bishop you just moved needs to go back lol.

Chess....... I think it was originally invented as a torture device.