Hot answers tagged

20

It's definitely possible there are strategies we don't know about. However, training your engine to specifically play contrary to all we know isn't the way to get there. For example, what would you do if one of your pieces were threatened? Our current knowledge says to not give it up for no reason, so would your AI therefore decide to give it up (because it'...


11

I would say you are wasting your own time. Black could have built a d5-e5 center with two bishops on d6 and e6 in your setup. Even in you own line, Black has all the winning chances due to weaker White king. You are giving Black the development for free. Your opening idea won’t work against any decent player. Please study normal openings.


10

Firstly, you must understand how an engine plays chess, because if you don't you'll never understand why it's hard. Without going into too much technical details, an engine doesn't think. Even the most powerful chess engine in the world don't know how to play chess, they examine hundreds and thousands of positions. For each position, the engine uses some ...


9

Trading for the sake of trading is bound to be in your opponent's favour more often than not. Generally speaking, recapturing often activates the piece that can capture back. Consider two rooks on an open file, both protected by another, pretty passive rook on the a-file. The side that trades loses control of the open file and is stuck with the a-file rook, ...


8

Trading pieces off the board being good or bad usually depends on the position, and there are a variety of situations to consider that could lead to a positional advantage. 1) Try to avoid trades when behind in material. If you're behind 3 points in material, the more pieces that come off the board, the more crippling that disadvantage comes. The more ...


8

No, because such a player could never become a significant chess player :) If you refuse to exchange in every type of position, you won't make it very far in chess (no matter how good you are). There were definitely players that loved to attack and do tactics (such as Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Tal), but even these players exchanged pieces when it was the ...


8

Botvinnik believed in peer review. He would write up annotations for his games, and publish them hoping for feedback from other players. He also recommended to his students that they annotate their losses, and also look for mistakes in the games they won. These elements are all part of his 'scientific' approach. Fischer always kept the endgame in mind, ...


7

Well, I think that knowing what type of style suits you best would be helpful in winning. If you are good at tactics, playing an open game like the Giuoco Piano where the pieces come in contact sooner would be more desirable than playing a closed one like the Queen's Gambit where a lot of maneuvering would go on before the game opened up and became more ...


6

In principle this is pretty easy. Get a database of 10 million human games, re-score the positions with a chess program (Lc0 or Stockfish), then train a Neural net to prioritize a combination of score and not picking the human selected move. Once you had the data, this could be done in a few weeks of GPU time, and should produce a computer that makes ...


5

Chess is not a game that solely exists in 64 squares. Much of chess exists in our minds, and the constructs we use to process those 64 squares into beautiful and powerful games. Naturally, some approaches work better than others. Kasparov's approach to chess in his mind is, needless to say, quite a bit better than my mental approach to chess. So, as with ...


5

Many Nimzo players already have the Queen's Indian Defense on their repertoire to deal with 3. Nf3. Such players may transpose between the two defenses whenever they have the opportunity and feel like switching. To be more precise, it is after 4. Nf3 that black has the option to enter a QID/Nimzo hybrid with 4... b6. [StartPly "8"] [FEN ""] 1. ...


5

I am thinking of a project involving training an AI to play chess, but with a loss function that discourages common moves for that position - i.e. a chess engine that performs incredibly well but as unlike a human as possible. Of course it would be possible to program an AI (or even an ordinary computer with no intelligence) to play the most unpopular ...


4

Here are two games from which you can tell my style. How could anyone judge something like this basing on two games? Imho those games aren't good examples at all. Those weren't any tactical, sharp games and not positional ones for sure. Your opponents just blundered. But you have taken adventage of it, so you're perceptive, that's good for you:) A bit ...


4

Yes But only actual experimentation will tell us if AlphaZero has left a meaningful amount of the chess space unexplored. Chess, like all games, boils down to two fundamental components: Explore the space of possible moves Evaluate the "goodness" of each such move AlphaZero uses a technique called Monte Carlo Tree Search to perform 1, and Deep ...


3

I wouldn't read too much into these descriptions. We like to make up adjectives to describe great people all the time - these are not always rooted in any kind of quantifiable fact. It is not likely that you would become as good as Botvinnik by "copying his style", if that even means something more than "play the same openings". Having said that, I believe ...


3

Let me answer your questions precisely and technically: Q: I also know that some softwares like chessmaster...? Nobody knows for sure because Chessmaster is closed source. Fortunately, it's not hard to replicate Chessmaster personalities. There're several ways to do it: Define different piece-square-table (PST) for each personality Define different tuning ...


3

The Dutch has definitely a sound positional base, that is, with f5 you take under control the center (e4), prepare to develop your knight behind a pawn (which is usually good as the squares diagonally to the pawn are now defended twice. This is the reason you play c4 in the Queens Gambit and only after Nc3 btw) and aim for fast counterplay or a solid setup. ...


3

I couldn't make one play like a human. But it could play less than perfect. Have it select its move randomly from the top "n" moves, where lower value of "n" denote higher strength. n=1 would mean the computer would play the best move every time. An n of 2 would mean the machine would select randomly between the best 2 moves. There would have to be ...


3

As described here the min-max algorithm is used in order to get the best strategy from any position in games, and therefore in chess. It uses tree ordering of the moves and each layer in the tree describes another player's move. The leaves at the bottom of the tree are the "values" gained from reaching this position with the sequence of moves from going down ...


3

The question is, equally effective against whom? You are correct that there tend to be "optimal" or "near-optimal" moves when engines play against engines. And when grandmasters play in long time control games, their moves often resemble those of engines. But when playing against lower-rated humans, or even against GM's in fast time control, there is a lot ...


2

It is hard to tell with only 2 games. But you seem to be a tactical player. You capitalized on tactical errors in both games. Were the games against the same person? They felt like it.


2

I think that at the GM level, all moves are aggressive, after a fashion. All are designed to harm the opponent, even if a previous error has cost us the advantage. Tal's moves may seem aggressive but frequently granted him remarkable defensive resources. Similarly, Petrosian's 'passive' style was anything but. They were elemental forces with wholly ...


2

When you say the word "Chess Style " the kind of Play the Player will reveal. The Style means what kind of play he is adept with and he likes to play the most. Yes Styles can even be transitioned .e.g. Bobby changed his playing style and his opening repertoire in 1992 match against Spassky . Chess Style reflects your own Personality and brings out the facets ...


2

Because of two reasons I can think of: Chess isn't always about a single perfect move (especially in the opening!), there tends to be 1 or 2 or 3, even 10 other moves that are exactly the same level of strength. Specifically speaking of the opening, styles of the positions you reach can differentiate based off what you play. We do it because people ...


2

The answer to why different players have different styles is already in the question: because they are different. As in all aspects of our lives, in a game of chess we have options, and in the same way that different people approach their life in different ways, so do the chess players. For most of the casual and even some tournament players, knowing the ...


2

The sole purpose of coining the term "chess style" is to categorize the way top players think. It is also used for adapting and making it so lower-level players can copy the way they feel like doing it. Style is important even in chess because it is your natural thinking process and acts like a mirror. It helps you to improve more by making the style as a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible