Kasparov - playing alongside a computer enhances creativity

[Michael Moore]

In the February 11, 2010 issue of The New York Review of Books, Garry Kasparov had this to say in an essay entitled "The Chess Master and the Computer" -

"Having a computer partner also meant never having to worry about making a tactical blunder. The computer could project the consequences of each move we considered, pointing out possible outcomes and countermoves we might otherwise have missed. With that taken care of for us, we could concentrate on strategic planning instead of spending so much time on calculations. Human creativity was even more paramount under these conditions."

Knowing or wanting to know your exact yardage, via booklet, sprinkler head, or the clearly illegal electronic device, has been characterized by many as fostering a style of play that is robotic and without flair.

I disagree and think that Kasparov has stated the case nicely.

[George Pazin]

My gut tells me that the more Garry relies on a computer to do the boring calculations, the lesser a player he will be overall. It's never good to rely on someone or something else to do the tough boring stuff; it's the mastery of that that creates champions, imho.

Think about it this way: if someone just told him that classic openings X, Y & Z were dead ends, would he be better off never learning why?

Would Tolstoy or whoever have been a better writer if he farmed out the minutiae?

Can't say I think that has a parallel in golf, gotta think a bit more on that.

Interesting topic, I hope others chime in.

[George Pazin]

As further anecdotal evidence - and really, what trumps anecdotal evidence? perhaps only MattLaw - I offer the frequent appearance of older golfers on the Masters and Open Championship leaderboards.

Tom Watson didn't learn how to play The Open by asking his caddie...

[Charlie Goerges]

Fantastic topic Michael, and I haven't thought about it that way before. I would have been more inclined to George's way of thinking beforehand, but now I'm not so sure. I think there is a lot more to say on the subject and I hope to see a good bit of talk on this.

When you get down to it, I do think that distance is the least "creativity-testing" aspect of shot-making and so what is the harm in reducing the time and effort spent on it's determination? Especially when the other factors are more interesting (i.e. ground contours, wind, intervening hazards etc.)

[Brent Hutto]

Somehow I think Kasparov knows just about all their is to learn about why some tactics work and other don't.

And I fail to see the educational or personal development value in pacing off the distance to a sprinkler head for the 10,000th time in my life. But maybe it's good for my soul.

[George Freeman]

And I fail to see the educational or personal development value in pacing off the distance to a sprinkler head for the 10,000th time in my life. But maybe it's good for my soul.

I struggle with the concept that sprinkler heads and walking off yardages from those heads is somehow different and "more OK" than a range finder.  Is there a difference between wanting the accurate yardage and attempting to obtain the accurate yardage through walk-offs vs. actually getting the absolute accurate yardage via a rangefinder?  Is walking off yardages from sprinkler heads "part of the game" whereas lifting a device to your eye and pushing a button not part of it?  I really don't know...food for thought.

What I don't struggle with is the absolute argument:  That yardage devices of any kind, existing on the course or brought by the golfer, are ill-conceived additions to the game; whatever side of the argument you fall on (I'm not taking either side).  It is difficult to get exposure to this type of "pure" golf as almost every course I've ever played has had some sort of yardage notifications (doesn't the Old Course even have marked sprinkler heads???).  All I can say is that the only time I've been in this type of situation was at the Sheep Ranch in Bandon, and that was as pure and fun of a golf experience as I have had.  I'm just not sure that translates to it working across the board...

Michael's acutal question is even more difficult to answer...

[Bob Harris]

At this point in time, it has been conceded that computers have surpassed humans at chess.  Whereas Kasparov and Kramnik after him were able to defeat the best computers, the top masters today will not compete against the top computers.
Today's Grand Masters use computer engines to test new strategies and ideas against a superior opponent.  

A further quote from Garry: Today, in a week, or in 24 hours, or live, people can see all these games. So that’s why you have to be very creative, because everybody have access to the same information. Your creativity is more important, because you have to process these games and invent something new.  
  

[George Pazin]

Somehow I think Kasparov knows just about all their is to learn about why some tactics work and other don't.

And I fail to see the educational or personal development value in pacing off the distance to a sprinkler head for the 10,000th time in my life. But maybe it's good for my soul.

Do you think there is a chance future chess grandmasters will forsake learning much of the nuts and bolts? If so, will they suffer for it?

People like Kasparov and Watson would likely not see any significant difference, because they have put in the study time. Too many young golfers and chess players will try to jump the process and end up being lesser players in the long run.

Or maybe not, maybe I'm a grumpy old man.

 

[Garland Bayley]

Given the differences in the disciplines, this is an invalid analogy.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Garland. 

Chess is ALL about strategy; there is no part of it that relies on execution, and therefore no psychological advantage to being sure of your distance.

Golf, on the other hand, requires execution, and execution requires a positive mind.  Technology has made it much easier to think positively in golf, which means golf is diverging more and more from real life.

[Kyle Harris]

I agree with Garland. 

Chess is ALL about strategy; there is no part of it that relies on execution, and therefore no psychological advantage to being sure of your distance.

Golf, on the other hand, requires execution, and execution requires a positive mind.  Technology has made it much easier to think positively in golf, which means golf is diverging more and more from real life.

There are several tactics in Chess - including a Skewer, Fork, Capture en passant, exposed check.... etc.

[Jason Walker]

doesn't golf require just a little bit of physical skill and ability too?

[TEPaul]

As usual Tom Doak hits the nail on the head unless someone can produce a credible analogy between hitting a strategic (tactical? ) or effective golf shot and moving a chess piece from one square to another square legally.  

One of the most wonderful things about this website is as time goes on the contributors and their threads and posts seem to get stupider and stupider as time goes along. Frankly, it has made me feel comfortabler and more comfortabler as time goes on. 

[Bob Harris]

I agree with Garland. 

Chess is ALL about strategy; there is no part of it that relies on execution, and therefore no psychological advantage to being sure of your distance.

Golf, on the other hand, requires execution, and execution requires a positive mind.  Technology has made it much easier to think positively in golf, which means golf is diverging more and more from real life.

Actually, at the highest level of chess, they all know tactics and strategy.  The difference between champions and contenders is preparing for your opponent, nerves of steel, and a killer instinct. 

[Kyle Harris]

As usual Tom Doak hits the nail on the head unless someone can produce a credible analogy between hitting a strategic (tactical? ) or effective golf shot and moving a chess piece from one square to another square legally.  

One of the most wonderful things about this website is as time goes on the contributors and their threads and posts seem to get stupider and stupider as time goes along. Frankly, it has made me feel comfortabler and more comfortabler as time goes on. 

Tom:

Let's take a look at the original statement by Kasparov:

"Having a computer partner also meant never having to worry about making a tactical blunder. The computer could project the consequences of each move we considered, pointing out possible outcomes and countermoves we might otherwise have missed. With that taken care of for us, we could concentrate on strategic planning instead of spending so much time on calculations. Human creativity was even more paramount under these conditions."

Now, consider your Match Play record amongst some of the very best - and the times you've defeated them or come close.

Then consider the 15th hole at Huntingdon Valley.

[Jay Flemma]

As a chess player -and former city of syracuse champ - I don't agree.  Doak, I love ya, but you're dead wrong and I challenge you to a chess match.

Chess is BOTH strategy AND tactics.  Both fit hand in glove.  http://www.chessinvasion.com/strategy-vs-tactic.html

Example:  Strategy = When I'm white I like to play the Ruy Lopez, but not the Sicilian Defense.  But once you play e4, things are out of your hands.  Your opponent has the ability to play c5 and you're in the Sicilian.

Now the Sicilian is monumentally complicated.  You can spend your whole life trying to find your way through that maze (never get outta this maze...never get outta this maze...).

So my strategy was trim down the number of Sicilian defense openings significantly...so anytime someone plays c5 back at me I play d4...and move into the Smith-Morra Gambit.

Suddenly a million lines are down to three...the decline, and 2 lines of the accepted...whether they take after I play c3 or not.

Other strategy issues:  attack king side or queen side?  Get into a specific end-game like rook and pawn vs something else?

Tactics are the way you execute the strategy...like Kyle said...x-ray attacks, forks, pins, etc.

As to golf, you can have all the gadgets in the world, but the execution is what matters.  If you are tempted into the shot that's too much for you or you put a poor swing on the ball, all the info in the world can't help you.

[George Pazin]

I don't believe Tom D was saying there are no tactics to chess, I believe he was saying the process is mental and lack a component of physical execution.

It may be physically draining to grind out your thinking, but it doesn't require much physical talent to move a chess piece...

[Jay Flemma]

I don't believe Tom D was saying there are no tactics to chess, I believe he was saying the process is mental and lack a component of physical execution.

It may be physically draining to grind out your thinking, but it doesn't require much physical talent to move a chess piece...

George, you'd be surprised how grueling competitive chess can be.  The tournament I won I had to play four games in one day, not to mention the two practice games I played before we even got started.  The pressure mounts as you advance through the rounds, and it can be a long day...

...also remember, every Grandmaster started as a novice and played other novices.  So as long as the mistakes he made were less than the mistakes than the other guy made he still won.  Also, you can play riskier openings, you can learn on the fly in an opening you get thrust into unintentionally - I had a friend who loved to surprise people with the French defense as Black...a crowded position to be sure - and you build up knowledge as you grow in experience.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't believe Tom D was saying there are no tactics to chess, I believe he was saying the process is mental and lack a component of physical execution.

It may be physically draining to grind out your thinking, but it doesn't require much physical talent to move a chess piece...

This is exactly what I meant.

Perhaps, in high-level chess, you might make a bad move -- I'm not sure whether that is strategy or tactics -- in the same way as a guy pulls the wrong club out of the bag.  And PRACTICING alongside a computer could prevent you from making that mistake, the same way having a yardage would prevent the mistake in golf. 

But nobody is suggesting that every chess player gets to keep a mini computer inside his pocket to check out his moves before he makes them in a tournament, are they?  In fact, the people who want rangefinders off the golf course are just hoping to preserve some element of judgment in the same way.

There could never be a rule in golf that you couldn't go onto the golf course the week before a tournament with a rangefinder and figure out all of the yardages ... but it's different to have one right there during a competition, because it gives you extra security you shouldn't have.

[George Pazin]

Again, Jay, you are missing out on the distinction.

All chess players on this discussion board: set aside your hurt feelings. It may be physically draining to think a lot, but it does not require significant physical execution to move a chess piece.

At any rate, it would be nice if people returned to the question of Garry's premise (and Michael's opening post).

[Jay Flemma]

Well then I agree with Tom that rangefinders are bad for competitive golf.

[Garland Bayley]

I agree with Garland. 

Chess is ALL about strategy; there is no part of it that relies on execution, and therefore no psychological advantage to being sure of your distance.

Golf, on the other hand, requires execution, and execution requires a positive mind.  Technology has made it much easier to think positively in golf, which means golf is diverging more and more from real life.

Actually, at the highest level of chess, they all know tactics and strategy.  The difference between champions and contenders is preparing for your opponent, nerves of steel, and a killer instinct. 

Or a paranoid fear of failure as in Bobby's case.

[Tim Nugent]

Jay: 6 matches in one day? hope you had a comfortable chair

As for range-finders, they are just as bad as marked sprinklers etc.  I grew up playing on an unmarked course and learned to play many different shots/clubs from the same distance ie. make a 7-iron go 140 or 170 depending on what was needed.  Today (I'm ashamed to say), I have surcombed to a pre-programmed distance=club mentality that's hard to break - given (as Tom points out) the certainty associated with it.  
Taking it a step further, I would like to see Pro Golfers have to figure it all on their own (no caddy insight).  Sometimes I think the caddy plays the course and the Pro just executes the shot (not unlike the computer).

[Tags:]

Tags: