English Chess Forum

Rather a high-brow article here:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/bust-this- ... al-opening

And an unexpected appearance of an England player at the end of the article.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Rather a high-brow article here:

In the absence of 32 or 31 piece tablebases, it is necessary to rely on evaluations if attempting to instruct computer engines, or even humans on how to play chess. In that case one of the simplest evaluations is the one that says Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=3 and P=1. The sequence 1. e4 d6 2 Qg4 Qxg4 is then a massive fail.

"The sequence 1. e4 d6 2 Qg4 Qxg4 is then a massive fail."

A massive fat-finger fehler resulting in an illegal move - 2... Qxg4, when you meant to play Bxg4.

Now you must move your Q to a legal square and the game can proceed.

Roger de Coverly wrote: The sequence 1. e4 d6 2 Qg4 Qxg4 is then a massive fail.

It's illegal as well... (for those that didn't follow the link, it was Luke McShane weighing in on the philosophical question of whether giving up your queen on move two is something you would bother telling computers to keep analysing or not).

I have to say I didn't feel as though I learnt anything from the post at all. Okay so 2 Qxg4 isn't a losing move outright but its also unworthy of any serious consideration. I thought it was a poor choice of example to prove a simple point.

The article seems to be making the point that there is no known forced checkmate after losing the Queen so early in the game. Why should it be thought necessary to be able to demonstrate a forced win in such a position?

At one time a strong player would give odds of a piece and still be able to win. In terms of simple logic it makes no sense to saddle oneself with a lost position at the start of the game.

As humans we are all capable of making mistakes and if one's opponent is skilful he or she could induce such a mistake. Surely, the interest of the game for a chess player is that having a material advantage is not sufficient in itself to win the game?

After making a blunder what determines whether one resigns immediately or accept the challenge of outwitting one's opponent from a clearly inferior position?

Why do we play chess?

Michael Flatt wrote: Why do we play chess?

The article, of course, is not really about people who play chess - rather about the mathematical analysis of the rules: an absorbing intellectual activity for people in its own right - just as playing the game itself is.

Having said that, I agree with others that there were a lot of words to say what (at least to us as players) was fairly obvious.

Yes, it is obvious. That is what makes it an interesting philosophical question as against an interesting chess puzzle with a known solution.

With such an overwhelming advantage, how does one administer checkmate to conclude the game?

MJMcCready wrote:I have to say I didn't feel as though I learnt anything from the post at all. Okay so 2 Qxg4 isn't a losing move outright but its also unworthy of any serious consideration. I thought it was a poor choice of example to prove a simple point.

"I would argue that I am more certain White is lost after 2...Bxg4, than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow." (Luke McShane - in the Chessbase article)

John McKenna wrote: "I would argue that I am more certain White is lost after 2...Bxg4, than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow." (Luke McShane - in the Chessbase article)

It relies on the skill levels of the players that a Queen advantage is decisive. If the playing level was little higher than the ability to play legal moves, White would still have chances. Although in those circumstances a draw by fifty moves or just two Kings remaining would still be a likely outcome.

Good morrow, Roger.
Couldn't resist pointing out the finger fehler - I was drunk...
Drunk with power because there was no arbiter present.

The philosophical point seems, to me, to be -

A human can decide to resign after... 2.Qg4 Bxg4, but a machine can only do so if instructed by a human.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It was Luke McShane weighing in on the philosophical question of whether giving up your queen on move two is something you would bother telling computers to keep analysing or not).

That's something that the developers of computer programs haven't yet mastered. How often do you see computer analysis of your games where it analyses to mate in 23 (with all the moves in the analysis) from an obviously lost position, but only gives you 2 or 3 moves of analysis to what it says is a clear advantage for one player, with it being not at all obvious why at the end of the sequence?

For those wishing to pursue the discussion further, if only during the breaks, the forthcoming conference on Chess and Mathematics on 6/7 December at London Olympia may be of interest.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/ed73bd_96fd011 ... 69c900.pdf

You may submit this new chess variant if you wish. But be careful of copyright.

I find Alice Chess or Kriegspiel useful in persuading children of the value of notation.

1 e4 e5 2 Qh5 Ke7 is, I think, the worst possible move that can be played in chess. It blocks the Q and B, loses a pawn and allows mate in 1.
But Al Horowitz claimed he was once kibbitzing a simul by Capa. He played QxQ mate. A friend asked Al whether this was the strongest move he had ever seen. 'Not at all, said Al. 'I was giving a simul, played a move and my opponent dropped dead.'

And to think, this wasn't all first published on April 1st.

Calculation isn't all. There is a function called intuition, lacking in computers. Intuitively, white is lost after Qg4.

In fact, human chess players typically try various moves and reject them because they are intuitively bad. So they often choose a move by sifting out the move that they don't feel bad about. The article doesn't take into account the human function of intuition.
/Mats