OpenChess

gaard wrote:I hope I am not re-posting something. In Peter Svilder's interview, he was asked:

* Russianchessfan: If you had to pick one player to represent earth in a chess game vs. aliens, which active player would it be? You can pick different active players for the white and black side, if you feel it necessary.

To which he replied: Houdini *



Looks like the word is not so slow to get around after all.

Kit: Computer chess – is it chess?
What’s computer chess? If you have in mind the World Computer Championship, then that’s a very interesting firing range for trying out algorithms, and you can find a mass of extremely interesting opening ideas. It attracts little outside interest, however, and I don’t think it represents any kind of threat to “real” chess. Today the question of the comparative strength of men and machines has essentially been resolved, and clearly not in our favour – but chess hasn’t particularly suffered as a result. As assistants, though, chess programs are absolutely irreplaceable.

Voor: Will human beings ever be able to develop their intuition and creativity to such an extent that they will be able to defeat computers consistently in chess?
No, I believe that if anything, the gap will widen. Not only are the machines getting faster, and the programs better-written, but the best players in the world need to take lengthy breaks to prepare and force themselves to play in a style contrary to their natural game to even have a chance. The last Kramnik match showed that humans are still good enough, with sufficient preparation (and barring blunders), to hold their own against the best programs – but only just.

ChemaAnton: Hello, Peter! Which engine do you use for analysis? (if it’s not a secret).
I’ve put together quite a large collection – although I’ve also seen much more complete menageries than mine. At the moment the ones I use most are Houdini, Fire and Rybka.

Naritsatel: What’s your opinion on “Rybka”? Do you think the strongest chess programs have already passed the point at which winning even one game (without a handicap!) against them over any sort of reasonable run of games is impractical for a flesh-and-blood player?
One game isn’t the long run. Winning a match is, to put it mildly, extremely unlikely, but winning one game over the course of a long match is still possible, I think, although extremely tough. A lot, again, depends on the equipment – your average run-of-the-mill notebook is one thing, while 8172 parallel processors is something else entirely.

Lane: Do you think that Vasik Rajlich’s idea of selling Rybka Cluster’s computing time to travelling GMs is viable?
Can't say really – depends on how user-friendly it will be, and of course on the prices. Only time will tell, I suppose. But it definitely has its merits.

vasa: Did you find the questions posed interesting?
To be honest – more so than I expected.

gaard wrote:I hope I am not re-posting something. In Peter Svilder's interview, he was asked:

* Russianchessfan: If you had to pick one player to represent earth in a chess game vs. aliens, which active player would it be? You can pick different active players for the white and black side, if you feel it necessary.

To which he replied: Houdini *



Looks like the word is not so slow to get around after all.

phisey: Aleksei, there are rumors that Kramnik practically has a “laboratory” of 6 computers which search for opening novelties day and night. Do you have any such “laboratory”? And how is it set up?

I normally prefer not to comment on rumors, but in this case I will answer that I rarely use engines without live analysis. I may, it’s true, set a computer to work on a certain position while I am out of the room. I suspect that this is quite an amateurish attitude. I have only one computer. The friends who help me out with preparation work under a similar regime.

mako27: Hello! When you have worked out long tactical variations with lots of branches on a computer, how do you try to write them down and memorize them? Do you only repeat them at home between tournaments, or do you review them directly before every game? Do you only review the moves, or do you check them over again on the computer?

Hello, Kostya. I don’t know, it seems as if I try to verify the variations that are automatically recorded during the computer analysis. If certain variations seem to be clearly secondary, then I erase them, but I try not to overlook the main lines and branches. Between games of a tournament there is probably even more checking. Because your thoughts are working faster and more clearly than during your training sessions, and in addition you are encountering a lot of the work of other chess players, new questions and ideas will often surface that you have to check. Naturally, in such situations it often happens that at the last moment you decide on a completely different opening, in which you have only primitive preparation.

Veritas: At one time Einstein told Lasker that there was no need for him to retain formulas and laws in his head, because he could look them up in any reference book. What do you think is the key to harmonious co-existence of a chess player and a chess computer program?

Once again, let me wish you further sporting successes in the future. Thank you for the wishes. All I know is that a contemporary active chess player still has to keep a lot in his head, and I suspect the same is true of a contemporary physicist. As for coexistence, work on the openings is not just about memory. Computers often suggest 3-4 equally good variations, and you won’t have time to look over all of them, so you always have to choose one or another. For that reason, analysis and preparation are in fact much more individual disciplines than they may seem from the side.

Renegat23: What kind of programs and chess engines do you use? Do you have a powerful computer(s)?

No, I have a completely standard computer with two cores and a speed of 2.5 GHz. Maybe I will upgrade soon. I use Rybka 3, but there are some positions in which Rybka 2 orients itself no worse.

Mustitz: How interested are you in playing against chess programs?

Nowadays it is almost impossible to outplay a program, [you can do it] only if your knowledge of the opening is an order of magnitude better than the program’s library. You have to play only for a draw, and that is no longer very interesting.

Mustitz: At what time control can the leading chess players put up good resistance against the leading chess programs?

I sometimes give myself 7 minutes + 5 seconds, and the amount I give the computer depends on my mood, but naturally I give it significantly less.

Tigrolex: Hello, Alexander! How do you feel about computer chess? Do you consider it more of a positive or a negative thing for the future of our game?

I don’t see anything positive, but the process is inevitable.

Mustitz: Do you play against computer programs? Do you recall any of those games?

I once played a program in the last round of a rapid chess tournament in Oviedo (1991). Computers at the time weren’t that strong, and a standard anti-computer strategy (closed positions and so on) was enough to win – though not without difficulty – and to earn an additional special prize.

WinPooh: What kinds of engines do the professionals use? I have heard that the great majority prefer Rybka or Fritz. Maybe by inertia. However, within the past year the very powerful “Ippolit family” has appeared: Ippolit, Robbolitto, Firebird and so on. The reception of them, in view of their uncertain origin, has been mixed. But many enthusiasts of computer chess agree that, at minimum, they are stronger than Rybka 3, and close to the level of Rybka 4. Have you tried to analyze with them?

For roughly two months my main engine for analysis has been Firebird 1.2. I like it. I recommended it to some of my colleagues, and they are more or less satisfied. Although I also use other engines, Stockfish 1.7.1 also recommends interesting variations.

As for the “uncertain” origins, I will not venture to comment, because I am not a specialist. But the variations and evaluations of the “Ippolit-like” engines nevertheless differ considerably from Rybka, so I have not noticed any close similarities between them.

- What is your opinion of playing with programs for training purposes?

Only in very small doses, and you can do without it completely. Whether you like it or not, you will start playing an anti-computer strategy, and that can become a very harmful habit.

vasa: Alexander, when did you stop playing against the computer?

For some reason this reminds me of Karlsson (not Magnus) and his question to the teacher, “Have you stopped drinking cognac in the mornings?” [Editor’s note: As in Part 1, this is the reference to the hero of “Karlsson-on-the-Roof” by Astrid Lindgren.]

To be honest, I never started. Machine play is very specific, and even if you play infrequently against the computer just for your amusement, it is easy to ruin your own routine for thinking against live opponents. In short, I do not advise it for anyone.

Nikola88: The appearance of computers has changed chess greatly. What is your prediction of the future development of chess as computer technology progresses?

What is there, really, to talk about? Yes, it's already obvious that the best programs play better than Anand, Kramnik and Kasparov, but so what?!

The role of opening preparation will grow in the near future, but it is impossible to completely replace the game with home preparation. And it will remain impossible. The level of play will grow simultaneously [with the level of openings].

ChesS_BotvinniK: Hello, Alexcander Valerievich!
- Now, obviously, is the era of computer technology. How do professionals work with the computer (do they make databases, or simply play with the engine, or something else)?

Some people create separate databases by opening and opponent, but I think that it's a matter of taste and habit. The analysis of critical positions with the assistance of various engines is, of course, an important part of the work, but one must never forget also to use one's own head.

E-not: Although people say that chess is an art, it is still “computable.” The fact that programs can play better than humans suggests that maybe the concept of a “beautiful game” can be given some sort of quantitative evaluation. What kinds of characteristics of the position, what kinds of moves could lie at the foundation of such an evaluation?

When it become possible to formulate and evaluate beauty, then no beauty will remain. Some signs of this fact are already apparent. Once upon a time, the words “The grandmaster sacrifice a knight” would have raised the roof in front of an awed public. Now, the audience watches the game together with a joint and a beer Rybka and Fritz, and they will most likely be worn out by the grandmaster’s protracted deliberation over a completely obvious sacrifice (from the point of view of our electronic advisors).

I don’t know how to formalize “objective” beauty. I advise you not to get wrapped up in this. Just be satisfied with what your personal, subjective taste tells you.