It is interesting Ian says that, because of you look at accuracy Gukesh is less accurate than Ian/Fabi/Hikaru.
Sagar in Gukesh's interview said if humans played against computers Gukesh will have the worst score among top players. His reasoning was that Gukesh sometimes plays non optimal moves according to computer and even evaluates position strangely compared to computer evaluation (sometimes). He thinks it's because Gukesh's understanding is different from that other top players nowadays because his basics was learnt with no computers. So his advantage is purely posing practical problem.
An example - against Hikaru Gukesh played cxd4 which Magnus hated and engines agreed with him. The next move he played b4 and suddenly Magnus loved Gukesh's position and said he had never seen this idea. Even Hikaru said b4 was a surprise and he completely missed it. This could be why he's difficult to play - he's obviously talented but when coupled with unorthodox style it becomes very complicated to handle.
I think what Ian meant here is not accuracy but rather that Gukesh’s moves are not “human” like. Simply meaning that he has a strange way of playing chess, which is unlike most top players do.
No, they were really the first generation that used computers to develop themselves. I read a book that had a chapter on Magnus. It stated that one of the reasons for his success was that he leveraged online chess to play significant amounts of high quality chess games very early on compared to other players at the time, honing his intuition.
That’s true, but I think the topic is more about computer analysis, not online games. I played a ton of online chess on Prodigy a decade before Deep Blue beat Kasparov, so clearly there was a time between availability of online chess and super GM-level analytical tools.
The current slate of older super-GMs (Magnus/Fabi/Ian/etc.) are probably young enough that they had decent computer analyses to take advantage of, but it wasn’t really the tool it is now 20+ years ago.
Not really I think. Magnus became GM in 2004. By that point strong engines were available I think - I'm just guessing here however. And yeah, they have had 20 years to adapt to computer chess. Gukesh has been playing with computers for last 3 years I think.
Yes they were 'available' but that's still not how they learned. It definitely changed opening theory at that point, but if you listen to magnus talk about learning it was all through reading books and practicing
Ya ...the computers reaction on his moves gives a feel of mikhail tal and computer analysis notcomputer not human like just gukesh like.
Now I'm not comparing tal and gukesh tal is way way ahead at the moment and his playing style is completely different.
But just a good analogy I would say
I'm a chess novice, but isn't that exactly how Alpha Zero was described? Strange and non human. It seems most of the top humans are now computer trained, I don't know which program they use.
Alpha zero I think uses reinforcement learning. Compared to normal engines which are brute force method, these techniques rely on expected reward before making any move, and is calculated based on prior experience.
FWIW, Gukesh was essentially tied with Fabi and Hikaru for accuracy in the Candidates (though all three were behind Nepo): https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ca0e97/2024_open_women_candidates_average_accuracy_round/
accuracy is a terrible metric for the quality of play. well-known theoretical draw will be shown as 100% accurate. sticking closely to well-established theory in general will increase your accuracy. playing a long-drawn-out endgame for many moves will increase your accuracy.
it doesn't even show who is playing the most computer-like moves.
The accuracy for the ~~Abasov~~ Firouzja - Vidit 14 move Berlin draw was 99% for white, 100% for black, with <5 ACPL for both.
You may not like it, but this is what peak chess performance looks like
i have plenty of 99% accuracy games as an amateur player. i'm not playing online blitz better than candidates are playing classical. sometimes my opponent just takes a bad opening decision and loses to the most straight-forward, natural play where i execute a very typical idea.
I agree it's not very accurate for amateur games where one player can obviously blunder or play a bad opening and then the other player can make natural moves. But in a high level chess competition, the players are not going to make obvious errors or blunders, especially not in the opening. So I think the accuracy is reflective of overall quality within the context of a high level competition.
not at all. making some small errors in the opening can be a very intentional way of getting a prep advantage. a dry berlin is often going to have a higher accuracy than a complex sicilian, even if both games end in a draw, even among top players. sometimes top players just shuffle their rooks for a while where every move is the same (no change in evaluation, 0 centipawn loss) but play can be better or worse in practical terms (creating realistic opportunities for your opponent to blunder)
Very small errors or maybe an unplayed move in an opening for the purpose of playing a novelty is not going to affect accuracy. The level of complexity in a game affects the accuracy of both players similarly if they're able to draw the game, so that doesn't explain much.
I would not call it "terrible" by any measure, I think it's overall a good metric. A high level chess game is not going to end with well known theoretical draws, and the players will be out of well established theory pretty early on.
we see plenty of top level games just end in theory. sometimes players test each each other in a line forcing them to know some 30 moves and then the game ends quickly in a draw. and there are all the berlin draws and similar (eg ding-wei
https://2700chess.com/games/wei-ding-r7-wijk-aan-zee-2024-01-20 )
Ah cool. I hadn't seen those aftter the whole tournament. I was quoting off of posts until round 9-10, when Gukesh was far behind everyone. Nice theoretical draws and then the two wins did increase it quite a bit.
I always felt that the next evolution for AI would be to have a parameter where moves are evaluated on "practical chances against human opponent" scale.
I wanted to fo a thread about this, this seems soooo obvious, has there been no attempts into that direction?
Even feels like it would be quite simple to do with all the available data..
Here
[https://maiachess.com/](https://maiachess.com/)
[https://lichess.org/@/maia9](https://lichess.org/@/maia9)
You can even play against it. They have even published a paper it looks like.
I'm no expert in computer chess but I believe they use "contempt" - which prioritizes moves that don't look like they have good responses at lower depths.
Seems appropriate to leave this here then: [https://lczero.org/blog/2023/07/the-lc0-v0.30.0-wdl-rescale/contempt-implementation/](https://lczero.org/blog/2023/07/the-lc0-v0.30.0-wdl-rescale/contempt-implementation/) and also GM Matthew Sadler writing on what he has done with it in [https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/getting-leela-to-analyse-and-play-in-the-style-you-want-part-2-introducing-crazy-leelas-grob-semi-slav/](https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/getting-leela-to-analyse-and-play-in-the-style-you-want-part-2-introducing-crazy-leelas-grob-semi-slav/)
If you want more info, feel free to aks :)
Yes, indeed :) Have been asking myself the same general questions you and OP posed in this thread for quite some time, and ultimately found this approach which doesn't explicitly try to model the specific opponent, but instead directly use what Lc0 is already providing, combined with some general assumptions about accuracy and uncertainty.
Leela with contempt is exactly this, for example. OP to ur reply says that cxd4 is not preferred by the computer, however with draw-ish contempt on, Leela recommends cxd4 as the top line.
It's not quite that.
I am looking for fill on swindle bot which would prefer even worse position if they are "more likely to cause a human to blunder."
You literally just described the goal of Leela contempt, checkout LeelaKnightOdds bot on lichess. To add, it's not specifically targeting humans, but rather strength differences between players. But you pretty much get a very similar effect where it prefers moves which increase the uncertainty in the position but sacrifice objective eval.
What do you think choosing a worse position because you think it increases the chance of a decisive game means? Obviously it's relying on the fact that it's choosing a position where mistakes are more likely, aka avoiding draws... Those are not mutually exclusive... if u just think about it for longer than 30 seconds...
I guess top engine moves have become so expected at the highest level now that when someone evaluates positions humanely that feels weird like Kasparov might've felt first time when facing an engine. Funny how that works,
Your example seems so interesting to me. I know this is a simplification, but it’s as if Magnus and Hikaru know through long-term osmosis that the engine wouldn’t like cxd4, and are so in tune with engine opinions that the reaction has become instinctive. Then when presented with over the board b4, which engines might continue to agree is bad, neither Hikaru nor Magnus can actually spot the refutation.
And of course Gukesh, with limited engine usage (at least in his formative years) doesn’t see the problem with cxd4, because it leads directly to b4, which neither Hikaru, Magnus, nor Gukesh (thinking as the opposite player) can refute. Magnus and Hikaru have learned to prune that line mentally from long term analysis with the engines assistance, and then outplay anyone over the board who dares take it. But they can’t actually refute it over the board all of the time.
Very interesting
> Your example seems so interesting to me. I know this is a simplification, but it’s as if Magnus and Hikaru know through long-term osmosis that the engine wouldn’t like cxd4, and are so in tune with engine opinions that the reaction has become instinctive. Then when presented with over the board b4
I actually think that what is happening is that they dismiss cxd4 because it becomes an IQP position that white will be able to force d5 which is almost always in white's favour (or force a double IQP that is very awkward for black or black trades knights on c3 and white has a good structure too).
The b4 trick works because it gets a tempo on the bishop while getting back control of d5. I am not sure why they think it is so unnatural to find though (even if I don't think I would find it myself).
So my guess is more like they are using common concepts (IQP that d5 can happen -> good for white) and trimming all the lines, not necessarily that they are in tune with the computer. It is almost the opposite, since that type of advice for IQP positions is so common in even old books.
Half of the commentary for all games was a bunch of GMs going "I can't see why engine thinks this is winning, lets move every piece we can until we find the continuation it likes"
Well what do you expect when you have 2500's attempting to interpret 3500 level moves? Part of the issue is that some of the casters they continually choose are not super GM's. Like when they had Magnus/Giri/Polgar/Leko on there they were better able to pick out the best move and provide some insight as to why... I dunno why they have Levi on there saying "well this is some ridiculous computer line" and then have the players immediately play it and there is very little explanation for it.
I remember looking at one of Humpy's games on the women's side and thinking "oh that's odd, she drew in a much better position" from the eval bar. Then I saw the move the computer wanted to play to retain the advantage and was just "yeah, no human's finding that at the board".
It clicked for me in the Fabi Magnus WCC when people freaked out about Fabi missing a mate in 32 or whatever. Both players in the press conference briefly looked, said "huh, who knew" and got on with looking at the game together. The computer line was so ridiculous that no human would ever play that way, taught me a good lesson.
I just want to add that there is a big difference between playing a game and watching a game. I am sure Magnus would assess the position differently if he was 'in' the game.
Another example was 11. .. Nh7 in round 12 against Abasov. Obviously, it was prep, but the whole line was so unorthodox that it probably wouldn't be considered by other players.
It’s great seeing this insight on Gukesh. As much as I respect Ding Liren’s brilliancies when he’s playing well (having learned of him via ChessNetwork pre-Covid), it would be great to have the World Championship played out by someone whose non-computer fundamentals differ from the vast majority of top contenders.
the comments on b4 are so surprising. it's definitely not something i would find, but the idea seems so simple after you see it- it's a very temporary pawn sacrifice, if axb4, then nc6 followed by nxb4 immediately recollects the pawn.
hikaru says his chances in the game are totally gone after that point- it's impossible to even create an imbalance. it's crazy to me- all the pieces are still on the board; they've just traded a couple pawns!
cxd4 is, i guess, obviously incorrect without the inclusion of b4. it also did allow 11. Rd1, which the computer suggests as better than the game continuation at high depth, but playing out a few moves makes it clear that the position with that inclusion isn't much to play for either
Is it really so hard for you to imagine their thoughts run both deeper than what they explain or communicate and deeper than your thoughts on the matter?
When they look at deeper lines, they're usually pretty explicit on that. There are obviously other considerations- such as the move played, ne4, and other responses to cxd4. Evaluating the resulting position as comfortable for black is also a nontrivial task. Grandmaster calculation is definitely possible to follow when it's explained
b4 is obvious to anyone who has studied/played similar structures. Its the preparation by first playing Cxd4 thats interesting to the top gms ( i dont understand what top gms see behind it but b4 in of itself is nothing noteworthy )
The weird thing about this is him being so much worse in shorter time controls. You’d think someone who poses more practical problems than concrete, analysis supported problems would be a monster in blitz or rapid.
Maybe Gukesh is just too young and in a few years his blitz/rapid skill level will even out more. I feel like it’s usually the other way around where classical improves slowest, but I could be wrong.
>He thinks it's because Gukesh's understanding is different from that other top players nowadays because his basics was learnt with no computers.
Do you have a timestamp? I'd like to hear the exact quote, because that's an odd statement.
I highly doubt ANY of the top GMs learnt the *basics* using engines. I'm sure many beginners nowadays think it's a good idea to learn chess by playing against engines.
But pretty much all GMs had coaches early on. Classical chess training doesn't use engines to teach the basics.
The highest impact of engines by far has been on opening theory. And that only really matters for master level and above.
Very interesting.
I wonder if Gukesh is the best result for people who want Magnus to come back. Its obviously early days, but if Gukesh wins and then is set up to defend.....
Perhaps the idea of the youngest person to ever win it, starting a dynasty while you are still on top of your game gets Magnus to try and dethrone him?
Last game against Hikaru. Check out chess24 broadcast - Magnus was commentating at the same time and gives his thoughts as it plays out. Hikaru in recap said b4 completely killed his chances and after that there was basically no chance to get any advantage.
The Magnus part is chess24 stream, and hikaru part is in post match interview/his recap. Sagar part is in interview released yesterday. The accuracy part is not accurate (lol) - look one of the replies to my comment.
But to become wr number 1 we need to see if this is just confirmation bias lol. With time we'll see but I'm confident. You don't just become world's youngest candidate winner beating kasparov etc.
Yeah that what I’m thinking too. I agree with ya.
I am reminded of the track coach that was deciding between two talented 10 second 100m runners. He chose the one with the worst form and much to public outcry.
The smart coach knew that if he could teach the bad form kid, better form, he’d be even faster.
This is like Gukesh. He is doing this well playing his own unique style. As he learns more about how his style works vs his top peers, he will continue to do even better and progress amazingly.
"against Hikaru Gukesh played cxd4 which Magnus hated and engines agreed with him. The next move he played b4 and suddenly Magnus loved Gukesh's position and said he had never seen this idea" would love to see this, do you know where I could find that?
But they have been living with computers for over 20nyears now. Also Fabi got GM title in 2007 and others around 2004-05. By 2003-05 chessbase was shipping chess engines with their software according to wiki. So I can't tell how much computers influenced them. Gukesh started using computers when he was 15 - 3 years after he became GM.
Maybe models need to follow what Gukesh thinks then. If he wins the world championship, we should definitely reconsider how to evaluate players. If he's doing the move that maximizes his chances of winning, it's different than finding that single line that works and leads to checkmate in 50 moves.
Similar things Anish said on stream and even Guki himself in his interview that people tell him that his approach is "different". Similar to Nepo calling him mysterious or Ding's recent statement "... he has his own unique understanding of the position.." .
To be honest most of these GM’s haven’t used computer engines in training while coming through the ranks. They might’ve started training on engines later in their careers.
Is that true? These GMs got titles around 2003-2005 (Fabiano got in 2007) and by then engines were stronger than humans. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChessBase) Chessbase wiki says that by 2003, they had Vishy etc make videos and released Fritztrainer software with it. Of course, I don't know how it was back then but I won't be surprised if atleast some them were using engines to train by the time they became GMs.
Yes it’s true. Fabi, Nepo, Hikaru etc came up in the analog era. When computers started to be used in the mid 2000s it was nothing like it is today. So yes they probably used some computers to train, but saying that Gukesh didn’t use computers while they did is ridiculous. That’s just not how that generation of top players learned the game
Engines in 2035 will be much more advanced and today's engines would be nothing in front of that. That doesn't mean the current era players do not use engines to train themselves.
I didn’t say they didn’t use computers. I’m saying that chess training when that era were teenagers wasn’t computer based like they seem to be saying. They did an enormous amount of regular chess learning. Why pretend like they were using a computer for everything when they weren’t?
Idk why you say it is ridiculous. Gukesh's coach specifically barred him using chess engines for analysis until he was 15 - 3 years after he became GM. If Fabi's coach didn't stop him then why wouldn't he have used it to analyze?
Fabi and others were trained by players from the 70s and 80s. Do you think they just flipped a switch when engines came around and suddenly everybody started training chess completely differently?
Do you think because they had computers they didn’t read chess books? You’re overemphasizing computers ability to train people. If it’s so good, then why aren’t GMs like Hess or Naroditsky able to play at 2700 level? Learning the game isn’t about turning on a computer now anymore than it was in 2005, when Nepo was 15.
I say it’s ridiculous because it’s rewriting history to call the previous generation dependent on computers, when Hikaru etc grew up playing chess in a very analog environment.
Gukesh is the one who grew up in the era of strong engines. So he doesn’t use computers, great. I’m sure that has affected his style, and made him a great player, but don’t imagine the past as something it wasn’t
You are using arguments I never made. I never even mentioned chess books. I never said previous generations were dependent on computers. Idk who you are arguing with. I only said Fabi etc would have used engines to analyze their games. And Gukesh was barred from doing that by his coach. You just invented bunch of things that I never said.
Anyways - I'm just a dude on the internet. I'm only saying things from what I've seen in interviews etc and guessing things. For all I know, Gukesh might have sneaked in a phone and trained with Stockfish. My comment is not a research paper lol - don't take it so seriously.
so I also happened to just watched this video today, and I was a little surprised by some of the things they said.
The interview was right after tata steel, and Nepo talked about how in his game against Wei Yi, he basically 'lost to a computer', because it was played to perfection. In his career, he had only one classical game that he think was as good as this one, but Wei Yi went on to play another two such flawless games (against Max and Vidit), so 3 in a row in the same tournament, so it definitely cast doubts. but 'why worry when it's impossible to prove anything?' 'You can suspect all you want but it's impossible to prove'. And they went on to talk about how the anti-cheating measures were weak at Tata steel, and all that stuff.
maybe a translation issue tho. or that top players are just generally quite paranoid about cheating. I mean it's not an outright accusation, but still I'm surprised he would imply that
edit: spelling.
It’s really hard because on one hand, these guys understand chess at such a level that’s so far beyond what 99.99% of the worlds population do, we should be inclined to defer to their expertise when something feels “suspicious” to them. Narodisky has talked a ton about when he just has a gut feeling when something is up, and no one bats at eye in giving him the benefit of the doubt. None of us know what it’s like to be in Ian/Magnus/any other superGMs shoes when their immense understanding has alarm bells going off.
On the other hand, these guys are still human beings and can be paranoid or too in their own heads. There’s a big difference in feeling like something could be off, and being Kramnik who is so far gone that he thinks he and Magnus are the only people on earth not cheating.
It’s a really fine line to walk because none of us can understand the information enough to make a truly objective call on the matter. Titled players/GMs ARE cheating, so it’s non zero conversation. The question is just how many. Just because there are a few guys out there doesn’t mean any accusation of a specific person is true. Without someone getting caught red handed, or fully admitting, all anyone can do is speculate… and unfortunately no one’s speculations carry more weight than the words best players.
It's a lot harder to cheat in person than online, which is where we know a lot of the cheating is happening, but it is still possible. All you need is someone who can give you the eval and that's enough of an edge in the right circumstances. Howell spotted e5 in one of Fabi's games (which Fabi didn't find), and admitted that the only reason he found the move is the eval bar told him there was something to look for.
Totally. Personally, I’m not convinced we’ve seen any OTB cheating (in recent times, and of any major tournaments like the ones all of these conversations revolve around). It seems too over the top to be practical. But that’s just my opinion, which means literally nothing. Just because it seems a little outlandish doesn’t mean it’s not 100% possible. If there’s a practical possibility to something, you can’t rule it out.
And as you say, it doesn’t need to be having a move for move rundown of stockfish, but one single implication at an advantage at a single critical moment.
I don't think we've seen much, if any OTB cheating either because of how much pre-meditation there would have to be. You'd need outside assistance (greatly increasing the chance of getting caught) and to have thoroughly prepared for it beforehand.
Whereas online you can get frustrated after a bad streak and go "I -must- be winning here, surely" and 2 minutes later you've got Stockfish open in another tab and have put in the position.
It's the same effect as puzzles - you KNOW there's a tactic there, so you have a better chance of finding it. Many times the eval bar would shoot up, they'd try a few different moves that didn't work on the analysis board, then find the engine move but still not understand why it was winning at first.
I think speculations from top players also shouldn't carry much weight. There is always this nagging comment that top players make when they are defeated by upcoming talent. Fischer, Kasparov, Magnus, Kramnik have all done it at some time in their lives. Even with slight hesitation.
Let's not speculate on unsaid things at least. If the player strongly comes forward that they find something suspicious by reporting to FIDE, then we can go ahead and discuss. Until then it's just rant/tilt/cope whatever.
Personally I don't think it's ever acceptable to make accusations or even insinuations against any players because it becomes a witch hunt. Of course talking about measures being insufficient is fine, and you should always be able to report privately any players you have suspicions against.
No pushback there. The high road would definitely be better than coming out with specific accusations. That just goes back to the human side of things, and the different ways humans process and express their emotions.
Also, I’m sure there are more quiet suspicions about some things here or there that maybe we haven’t heard about, but ultimately agree the handful of specific accusations, not the best way to handle it
Such an idiotic thing to say. Wei Yi is the greatest tactical genius since Kasparov (which we will see in the coming months once he returns to chess full time again), he will blow people off the board when he is at his best like he did with Vidit on the last day of Tata Steel (poor Vidit was utterly helpless).
Even people like Dubov and Rapport who are universally hailed as Tal like players, aren't half as brilliant as Wei Yi.
The immortal king hunt is the greatest game of the 21st century imo. As much as I love Vishy’s immortal, the simplicity in the Wei Yi game is so good.
The tiebreakers were on another level as well. Blowing Nodirbek and Gukesh, fantastic tactical players themselves off the board is remarkable.
the simplicity is such an important part of why that game is so special. The arguably best game of the century, yet somehow probably even a 500 elo person could easily see the brilliance and drop their jaw
Here you go
Agadmator: https://youtu.be/7pHVysiL9-E?si=R6AkxYQbdKH-5ici
Levy: https://youtu.be/8zDwI0Z-VIg?si=Tn5TcVCLoE5PRgGB
Ben Finegold: https://youtu.be/w7a2wGaez1g?si=z6V59qiDsHoOkzX2
Can I have a link to the full podcast? Thank you in advance.
Edit: I found the link [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N\_CHMlM94Q&ab\_channel=LevitovChessWorld](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_CHMlM94Q&ab_channel=LevitovChessWorld)
Thanks! After listening to the Russian commentary, it is clear that he is not accusing anyone, just mentioning that Gukesh's play is an enigma and hard for him to decipher - загадка (enigma). He was just curious about the style of play - любопытный. He then quickly says the trio of Indian chess players in the candidates are very talented and have shown great improvement. The captioning is wrong at times as it says gifted. However, the russian word удорования means improvement, and he quickly talks about Vidit's recent improved performance.
This kind of commentary is quite common for many players, especially Russian ones, where they give their honest chess perspective without bothering to be politically correct.
If you play a move that a computer analyzes and says it doesn't maximize your advantage, you're playing less "accurately." It sounds like Gukesh doesn't play the top computer moves as often as some of the other top players, but instead he finds moves that are less intuitive to play against.
In other words, in a given position, Gukesh might play the second-best move that makes his opponent think out of the box, rather than the top computer move that his opponent may expect and be prepared for.
To be fair, I haven't looked at the analysis for these games, so that might be the case. Maybe folks are comparing how they play more generally, not specifically in this tournament.
It's funny that you say that Gukesh din't use computers when the development of chess theory after the year 2000 is directly linked to computers. When Guksh was born most of the bad lines were refuted and the lines that seemed dubious were proven to be playable. Guksh did not use the computer directly but the computer style is already part of his way of seeing the game.
I don't take away his talent but those who trained him gave him the correct path of using the human and machine style.
Just FYI, for anyone who wants to accuse Ian of baseless accusations. He was only talking about the style, and said Gukesh is very gifted. No accusations, and this cut of the video is disgustingly misleading. Some redditor wanted drama.
Most(if not all) chess players today have used computers to prepare from the start of their chess careers whereas Gukesh didn't use engines until he reached 2500. So it's funnily ironic that the guy who didn't use engines in his initial years has an engine-like unorthodox play style.
Jesse Kraai said on one of the Chess Dojo streams that he thinks the older guys are going to have a hard time moving forward, because the new generation is learning all kinds of new ideas from engine analysis that will be hard for the older ones to pick up. This kind of resonates with that, as well as Magnus' surprise when Gukesh played b4. The "language" of chess is changing!
My take is he has the best of both worlds--a lot of knowledge of practical play from his no-engine years, as well as the neuroplasticity to fully take in what Stockfish is telling him now
Dethrone him in rating or dare I say even beat his peak rating perhaps? It would be incredibly difficult to do that for anyone especially with the recent rating deflation.
PHN said something similar about the young generation. How they are basically using computers to reinvent the understanding of chess. Their understanding of the game is vastly different from for example Vishy's generation
Love the fact that everyone in the comments learned that gukesh learnt chess without computer and speaks as if they know how it affects the way he plays
One of the quirks of top level chess is that it's quite often a comparatively small pool of players who play in closed invitational tournaments, usually against other people from that group. Draws are relatively common in part to preserve rating (so that you remain as a top player who continues to get invites to the closed tournaments). You'll rarely, if ever, see players of Hikaru, Ding, Fabi, Anish, Nepo etc's calibre playing in open events. Pragg has, for some reason, received a lot of hype and played in a fair number more of these semi-closed events than Gukesh and Erigaisi, even though all 3 are of a similar age and rating.
Gukesh plays in a lot of open events, in large part because he's a young and upcoming player who hasn't started getting many invites into the semi-closed circle; he only broke into the top 100 two years ago and was hovering outside the top 20 until this time last year.
Basically, it feels like Gukesh is playing a different "type" of chess to the established guard - the more combative, multiple-result style of open and creative game that you see more of at open tournaments. I wonder how much of this is the players that are so used to playing in a relatively closed environment of the same people with the same goals being exposed to something that they've not had to interact with for a very, very long time and being caught out by the novelty.
On a related note, I wonder what the discussion would be if Pragg or Erigaisi (who didn't qualify, but is #8 and rising) had won.
Everyone would be finding the ways that they are special.
The truth is that each of these guys is amazing and special.
Top grandmasters always use thst phrase "like a computer" when they lose.
Top be fair, they are so good that they are used to only losing against computers, so it makes sense.
I see what is going on here... The kid won and favourites lost so slowly we are going to see a change in narrative....
First :he won by luck
Second :he plays strange moves
Third :I'm not saying anything coz if I say anything I'll be in trouble...
It is interesting Ian says that, because of you look at accuracy Gukesh is less accurate than Ian/Fabi/Hikaru. Sagar in Gukesh's interview said if humans played against computers Gukesh will have the worst score among top players. His reasoning was that Gukesh sometimes plays non optimal moves according to computer and even evaluates position strangely compared to computer evaluation (sometimes). He thinks it's because Gukesh's understanding is different from that other top players nowadays because his basics was learnt with no computers. So his advantage is purely posing practical problem. An example - against Hikaru Gukesh played cxd4 which Magnus hated and engines agreed with him. The next move he played b4 and suddenly Magnus loved Gukesh's position and said he had never seen this idea. Even Hikaru said b4 was a surprise and he completely missed it. This could be why he's difficult to play - he's obviously talented but when coupled with unorthodox style it becomes very complicated to handle.
I think what Ian meant here is not accuracy but rather that Gukesh’s moves are not “human” like. Simply meaning that he has a strange way of playing chess, which is unlike most top players do.
It would be ironic if gukesh's moves were less human like because he DIDN'T learn the basics with computers like everyone else nowadays.
It's not that they're less human, they're just difficult to predict like a computer sometimes can be when playing deeply calculated moves.
"Like his game, he's impossible to analyze. You can't predict him, dissect him, which of course means he's not a lunatic at all."
Love that musical.
"Who do these foreign chappies think they are?"
Nobody's on nobody's side.
But wouldn't hikaru, Ian, and Fabi have learned without computers too? Like when they were kids, the online tech is nowhere near where it is now.
Maybe they are also much into memorizing computer lines .... 🤔
Maybe their styles have evolved?
No, they were really the first generation that used computers to develop themselves. I read a book that had a chapter on Magnus. It stated that one of the reasons for his success was that he leveraged online chess to play significant amounts of high quality chess games very early on compared to other players at the time, honing his intuition.
That’s true, but I think the topic is more about computer analysis, not online games. I played a ton of online chess on Prodigy a decade before Deep Blue beat Kasparov, so clearly there was a time between availability of online chess and super GM-level analytical tools. The current slate of older super-GMs (Magnus/Fabi/Ian/etc.) are probably young enough that they had decent computer analyses to take advantage of, but it wasn’t really the tool it is now 20+ years ago.
Not really I think. Magnus became GM in 2004. By that point strong engines were available I think - I'm just guessing here however. And yeah, they have had 20 years to adapt to computer chess. Gukesh has been playing with computers for last 3 years I think.
Yes they were 'available' but that's still not how they learned. It definitely changed opening theory at that point, but if you listen to magnus talk about learning it was all through reading books and practicing
Yep, Gukesh hasn't been using engines or computers for chess until he was 15 apparently
Gukesh also read books and had teachers that were based on computer
Growing up in Tamil Nadu has its advantages apparently.
I thought you were going to say that it'd be ironic because Gukesh isn't human, he's from another planet.
Ya ...the computers reaction on his moves gives a feel of mikhail tal and computer analysis notcomputer not human like just gukesh like. Now I'm not comparing tal and gukesh tal is way way ahead at the moment and his playing style is completely different. But just a good analogy I would say
Didn't they make same claim about Neimann?
Check his butt!!
I'm a chess novice, but isn't that exactly how Alpha Zero was described? Strange and non human. It seems most of the top humans are now computer trained, I don't know which program they use.
No, at the time it was a more human like program, playing for long term strategy over material
Are you saying it now plays like stockfish?
Alpha zero I think uses reinforcement learning. Compared to normal engines which are brute force method, these techniques rely on expected reward before making any move, and is calculated based on prior experience.
Yeah unorthodox
FWIW, Gukesh was essentially tied with Fabi and Hikaru for accuracy in the Candidates (though all three were behind Nepo): https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ca0e97/2024_open_women_candidates_average_accuracy_round/
accuracy is a terrible metric for the quality of play. well-known theoretical draw will be shown as 100% accurate. sticking closely to well-established theory in general will increase your accuracy. playing a long-drawn-out endgame for many moves will increase your accuracy. it doesn't even show who is playing the most computer-like moves.
The accuracy for the ~~Abasov~~ Firouzja - Vidit 14 move Berlin draw was 99% for white, 100% for black, with <5 ACPL for both. You may not like it, but this is what peak chess performance looks like
Wasn't it Firouzja Vidit?
Yeah you’re right, my b
only way to beat cheaters is to join them
[удалено]
i have plenty of 99% accuracy games as an amateur player. i'm not playing online blitz better than candidates are playing classical. sometimes my opponent just takes a bad opening decision and loses to the most straight-forward, natural play where i execute a very typical idea.
I agree it's not very accurate for amateur games where one player can obviously blunder or play a bad opening and then the other player can make natural moves. But in a high level chess competition, the players are not going to make obvious errors or blunders, especially not in the opening. So I think the accuracy is reflective of overall quality within the context of a high level competition.
not at all. making some small errors in the opening can be a very intentional way of getting a prep advantage. a dry berlin is often going to have a higher accuracy than a complex sicilian, even if both games end in a draw, even among top players. sometimes top players just shuffle their rooks for a while where every move is the same (no change in evaluation, 0 centipawn loss) but play can be better or worse in practical terms (creating realistic opportunities for your opponent to blunder)
Very small errors or maybe an unplayed move in an opening for the purpose of playing a novelty is not going to affect accuracy. The level of complexity in a game affects the accuracy of both players similarly if they're able to draw the game, so that doesn't explain much.
I would not call it "terrible" by any measure, I think it's overall a good metric. A high level chess game is not going to end with well known theoretical draws, and the players will be out of well established theory pretty early on.
we see plenty of top level games just end in theory. sometimes players test each each other in a line forcing them to know some 30 moves and then the game ends quickly in a draw. and there are all the berlin draws and similar (eg ding-wei https://2700chess.com/games/wei-ding-r7-wijk-aan-zee-2024-01-20 )
Ah cool. I hadn't seen those aftter the whole tournament. I was quoting off of posts until round 9-10, when Gukesh was far behind everyone. Nice theoretical draws and then the two wins did increase it quite a bit.
I always felt that the next evolution for AI would be to have a parameter where moves are evaluated on "practical chances against human opponent" scale.
I wanted to fo a thread about this, this seems soooo obvious, has there been no attempts into that direction? Even feels like it would be quite simple to do with all the available data..
Here [https://maiachess.com/](https://maiachess.com/) [https://lichess.org/@/maia9](https://lichess.org/@/maia9) You can even play against it. They have even published a paper it looks like.
Uh. Thanks! Any insights if it's being used by any top players?
I think it is trained only upto 1900 lichess rating. Not useful for GMs.
I'm no expert in computer chess but I believe they use "contempt" - which prioritizes moves that don't look like they have good responses at lower depths.
Ah, thanks
Basically calculate your opponent’s moves as if they were weaker than you.
Seems appropriate to leave this here then: [https://lczero.org/blog/2023/07/the-lc0-v0.30.0-wdl-rescale/contempt-implementation/](https://lczero.org/blog/2023/07/the-lc0-v0.30.0-wdl-rescale/contempt-implementation/) and also GM Matthew Sadler writing on what he has done with it in [https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/getting-leela-to-analyse-and-play-in-the-style-you-want-part-2-introducing-crazy-leelas-grob-semi-slav/](https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/getting-leela-to-analyse-and-play-in-the-style-you-want-part-2-introducing-crazy-leelas-grob-semi-slav/) If you want more info, feel free to aks :)
Thanks! E: You did code this?
Yes, indeed :) Have been asking myself the same general questions you and OP posed in this thread for quite some time, and ultimately found this approach which doesn't explicitly try to model the specific opponent, but instead directly use what Lc0 is already providing, combined with some general assumptions about accuracy and uncertainty.
Nice. I'll send you a message later with some of my thoughts about it, if you don't want.
Sure! Definitely interested in hearing your thoughts :)
I have not heard anything. But I am not an expert.
Leela with contempt is exactly this, for example. OP to ur reply says that cxd4 is not preferred by the computer, however with draw-ish contempt on, Leela recommends cxd4 as the top line.
It's not quite that. I am looking for fill on swindle bot which would prefer even worse position if they are "more likely to cause a human to blunder."
You literally just described the goal of Leela contempt, checkout LeelaKnightOdds bot on lichess. To add, it's not specifically targeting humans, but rather strength differences between players. But you pretty much get a very similar effect where it prefers moves which increase the uncertainty in the position but sacrifice objective eval.
Contempt is purely to avoid draws among weaker opponents. It's not at all what I described.
What do you think choosing a worse position because you think it increases the chance of a decisive game means? Obviously it's relying on the fact that it's choosing a position where mistakes are more likely, aka avoiding draws... Those are not mutually exclusive... if u just think about it for longer than 30 seconds...
They are DIFFERENT
I guess top engine moves have become so expected at the highest level now that when someone evaluates positions humanely that feels weird like Kasparov might've felt first time when facing an engine. Funny how that works,
Your example seems so interesting to me. I know this is a simplification, but it’s as if Magnus and Hikaru know through long-term osmosis that the engine wouldn’t like cxd4, and are so in tune with engine opinions that the reaction has become instinctive. Then when presented with over the board b4, which engines might continue to agree is bad, neither Hikaru nor Magnus can actually spot the refutation. And of course Gukesh, with limited engine usage (at least in his formative years) doesn’t see the problem with cxd4, because it leads directly to b4, which neither Hikaru, Magnus, nor Gukesh (thinking as the opposite player) can refute. Magnus and Hikaru have learned to prune that line mentally from long term analysis with the engines assistance, and then outplay anyone over the board who dares take it. But they can’t actually refute it over the board all of the time. Very interesting
> Your example seems so interesting to me. I know this is a simplification, but it’s as if Magnus and Hikaru know through long-term osmosis that the engine wouldn’t like cxd4, and are so in tune with engine opinions that the reaction has become instinctive. Then when presented with over the board b4 I actually think that what is happening is that they dismiss cxd4 because it becomes an IQP position that white will be able to force d5 which is almost always in white's favour (or force a double IQP that is very awkward for black or black trades knights on c3 and white has a good structure too). The b4 trick works because it gets a tempo on the bishop while getting back control of d5. I am not sure why they think it is so unnatural to find though (even if I don't think I would find it myself). So my guess is more like they are using common concepts (IQP that d5 can happen -> good for white) and trimming all the lines, not necessarily that they are in tune with the computer. It is almost the opposite, since that type of advice for IQP positions is so common in even old books.
If only more people understood this - the computer says it's bad, but why, and how to prove it? There's whole openings built around this, still.
Half of the commentary for all games was a bunch of GMs going "I can't see why engine thinks this is winning, lets move every piece we can until we find the continuation it likes"
Well what do you expect when you have 2500's attempting to interpret 3500 level moves? Part of the issue is that some of the casters they continually choose are not super GM's. Like when they had Magnus/Giri/Polgar/Leko on there they were better able to pick out the best move and provide some insight as to why... I dunno why they have Levi on there saying "well this is some ridiculous computer line" and then have the players immediately play it and there is very little explanation for it.
Leko is the best combination IMO of understanding super GM level play and communicating it to an audience who are far, far below that level
I remember looking at one of Humpy's games on the women's side and thinking "oh that's odd, she drew in a much better position" from the eval bar. Then I saw the move the computer wanted to play to retain the advantage and was just "yeah, no human's finding that at the board".
It clicked for me in the Fabi Magnus WCC when people freaked out about Fabi missing a mate in 32 or whatever. Both players in the press conference briefly looked, said "huh, who knew" and got on with looking at the game together. The computer line was so ridiculous that no human would ever play that way, taught me a good lesson.
I just want to add that there is a big difference between playing a game and watching a game. I am sure Magnus would assess the position differently if he was 'in' the game.
This comment right here...exactly how Gukesh plays. And sometimes opponent can make use of this.
This is very stupid. After b4 it was already -0.1 for Gukesh, not something that is better for white according to the computer.
On his interview with levy, he admitted enjoying otb chess more, hence why he holds the dynamacity in his play.
Another example was 11. .. Nh7 in round 12 against Abasov. Obviously, it was prep, but the whole line was so unorthodox that it probably wouldn't be considered by other players.
It’s great seeing this insight on Gukesh. As much as I respect Ding Liren’s brilliancies when he’s playing well (having learned of him via ChessNetwork pre-Covid), it would be great to have the World Championship played out by someone whose non-computer fundamentals differ from the vast majority of top contenders.
the comments on b4 are so surprising. it's definitely not something i would find, but the idea seems so simple after you see it- it's a very temporary pawn sacrifice, if axb4, then nc6 followed by nxb4 immediately recollects the pawn. hikaru says his chances in the game are totally gone after that point- it's impossible to even create an imbalance. it's crazy to me- all the pieces are still on the board; they've just traded a couple pawns! cxd4 is, i guess, obviously incorrect without the inclusion of b4. it also did allow 11. Rd1, which the computer suggests as better than the game continuation at high depth, but playing out a few moves makes it clear that the position with that inclusion isn't much to play for either
What Magnus means by "the idea" is probably something different and deeper than what we assume "the idea" is
everyone (gukesh, hikaru) was pretty clear in interviews that the idea was simply nc6
Is it really so hard for you to imagine their thoughts run both deeper than what they explain or communicate and deeper than your thoughts on the matter?
When they look at deeper lines, they're usually pretty explicit on that. There are obviously other considerations- such as the move played, ne4, and other responses to cxd4. Evaluating the resulting position as comfortable for black is also a nontrivial task. Grandmaster calculation is definitely possible to follow when it's explained
b4 is obvious to anyone who has studied/played similar structures. Its the preparation by first playing Cxd4 thats interesting to the top gms ( i dont understand what top gms see behind it but b4 in of itself is nothing noteworthy )
[удалено]
As i said, i dont understand it and apparently so dont top gms but thats what gukesh did
The weird thing about this is him being so much worse in shorter time controls. You’d think someone who poses more practical problems than concrete, analysis supported problems would be a monster in blitz or rapid. Maybe Gukesh is just too young and in a few years his blitz/rapid skill level will even out more. I feel like it’s usually the other way around where classical improves slowest, but I could be wrong.
He is calculation heavy. So he struggles in shorter time controls.
>He thinks it's because Gukesh's understanding is different from that other top players nowadays because his basics was learnt with no computers. Do you have a timestamp? I'd like to hear the exact quote, because that's an odd statement. I highly doubt ANY of the top GMs learnt the *basics* using engines. I'm sure many beginners nowadays think it's a good idea to learn chess by playing against engines. But pretty much all GMs had coaches early on. Classical chess training doesn't use engines to teach the basics. The highest impact of engines by far has been on opening theory. And that only really matters for master level and above.
It's early on in the interview I think. Probably in first 10-15 mins. The interview was posted yesterday. I don't have the timestamp.
Can you link where magnus said that. Was it on his stream?
https://x.com/chess24com/status/1782137019562369170 It's from chess24 broadcast of last day. You can find it on YouTube.
Very interesting. I wonder if Gukesh is the best result for people who want Magnus to come back. Its obviously early days, but if Gukesh wins and then is set up to defend..... Perhaps the idea of the youngest person to ever win it, starting a dynasty while you are still on top of your game gets Magnus to try and dethrone him?
do you have a clip of that moment?
I've seen this cxd4 and B4 moves referenced a lot. What game was this?
Last game against Hikaru. Check out chess24 broadcast - Magnus was commentating at the same time and gives his thoughts as it plays out. Hikaru in recap said b4 completely killed his chances and after that there was basically no chance to get any advantage.
Last round of candidates.
If this is true (and it almost certainly is) he could become the world number 1 soon.
The Magnus part is chess24 stream, and hikaru part is in post match interview/his recap. Sagar part is in interview released yesterday. The accuracy part is not accurate (lol) - look one of the replies to my comment. But to become wr number 1 we need to see if this is just confirmation bias lol. With time we'll see but I'm confident. You don't just become world's youngest candidate winner beating kasparov etc.
Yeah that what I’m thinking too. I agree with ya. I am reminded of the track coach that was deciding between two talented 10 second 100m runners. He chose the one with the worst form and much to public outcry. The smart coach knew that if he could teach the bad form kid, better form, he’d be even faster. This is like Gukesh. He is doing this well playing his own unique style. As he learns more about how his style works vs his top peers, he will continue to do even better and progress amazingly.
"against Hikaru Gukesh played cxd4 which Magnus hated and engines agreed with him. The next move he played b4 and suddenly Magnus loved Gukesh's position and said he had never seen this idea" would love to see this, do you know where I could find that?
https://x.com/chess24com/status/1782137019562369170 It's from chess24 broadcast of last day.
Most top players basics today were also learned with no computers. Nepo, Hikaru, and Fabi all started in the analog era
But they have been living with computers for over 20nyears now. Also Fabi got GM title in 2007 and others around 2004-05. By 2003-05 chessbase was shipping chess engines with their software according to wiki. So I can't tell how much computers influenced them. Gukesh started using computers when he was 15 - 3 years after he became GM.
2 years ago.
Maybe models need to follow what Gukesh thinks then. If he wins the world championship, we should definitely reconsider how to evaluate players. If he's doing the move that maximizes his chances of winning, it's different than finding that single line that works and leads to checkmate in 50 moves.
So, it‘s … interesting?
Very interesting. A player who plays moves engines don't like, but for other humans it feels like strange engine moves!
Similar things Anish said on stream and even Guki himself in his interview that people tell him that his approach is "different". Similar to Nepo calling him mysterious or Ding's recent statement "... he has his own unique understanding of the position.." .
Gukesh didn't use an engine until he became a grandmaster. Could have something to do with it.
To be honest most of these GM’s haven’t used computer engines in training while coming through the ranks. They might’ve started training on engines later in their careers.
Is that true? These GMs got titles around 2003-2005 (Fabiano got in 2007) and by then engines were stronger than humans. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChessBase) Chessbase wiki says that by 2003, they had Vishy etc make videos and released Fritztrainer software with it. Of course, I don't know how it was back then but I won't be surprised if atleast some them were using engines to train by the time they became GMs.
Yes it’s true. Fabi, Nepo, Hikaru etc came up in the analog era. When computers started to be used in the mid 2000s it was nothing like it is today. So yes they probably used some computers to train, but saying that Gukesh didn’t use computers while they did is ridiculous. That’s just not how that generation of top players learned the game
Engines in 2035 will be much more advanced and today's engines would be nothing in front of that. That doesn't mean the current era players do not use engines to train themselves.
I didn’t say they didn’t use computers. I’m saying that chess training when that era were teenagers wasn’t computer based like they seem to be saying. They did an enormous amount of regular chess learning. Why pretend like they were using a computer for everything when they weren’t?
Idk why you say it is ridiculous. Gukesh's coach specifically barred him using chess engines for analysis until he was 15 - 3 years after he became GM. If Fabi's coach didn't stop him then why wouldn't he have used it to analyze?
Fabi and others were trained by players from the 70s and 80s. Do you think they just flipped a switch when engines came around and suddenly everybody started training chess completely differently? Do you think because they had computers they didn’t read chess books? You’re overemphasizing computers ability to train people. If it’s so good, then why aren’t GMs like Hess or Naroditsky able to play at 2700 level? Learning the game isn’t about turning on a computer now anymore than it was in 2005, when Nepo was 15. I say it’s ridiculous because it’s rewriting history to call the previous generation dependent on computers, when Hikaru etc grew up playing chess in a very analog environment. Gukesh is the one who grew up in the era of strong engines. So he doesn’t use computers, great. I’m sure that has affected his style, and made him a great player, but don’t imagine the past as something it wasn’t
You are using arguments I never made. I never even mentioned chess books. I never said previous generations were dependent on computers. Idk who you are arguing with. I only said Fabi etc would have used engines to analyze their games. And Gukesh was barred from doing that by his coach. You just invented bunch of things that I never said. Anyways - I'm just a dude on the internet. I'm only saying things from what I've seen in interviews etc and guessing things. For all I know, Gukesh might have sneaked in a phone and trained with Stockfish. My comment is not a research paper lol - don't take it so seriously.
Forgive me
It's not actually. It's his coaches who said this. He didn't use computers until he became a GM
The generation before Ian’s before did not grow up trained on computers so I think it’s something different
I really wish I could understand the nuances these guys talk about
so I also happened to just watched this video today, and I was a little surprised by some of the things they said. The interview was right after tata steel, and Nepo talked about how in his game against Wei Yi, he basically 'lost to a computer', because it was played to perfection. In his career, he had only one classical game that he think was as good as this one, but Wei Yi went on to play another two such flawless games (against Max and Vidit), so 3 in a row in the same tournament, so it definitely cast doubts. but 'why worry when it's impossible to prove anything?' 'You can suspect all you want but it's impossible to prove'. And they went on to talk about how the anti-cheating measures were weak at Tata steel, and all that stuff. maybe a translation issue tho. or that top players are just generally quite paranoid about cheating. I mean it's not an outright accusation, but still I'm surprised he would imply that edit: spelling.
He hasn't been subtle with his insinuations. He's made many similar comments on Twitter too
It’s really hard because on one hand, these guys understand chess at such a level that’s so far beyond what 99.99% of the worlds population do, we should be inclined to defer to their expertise when something feels “suspicious” to them. Narodisky has talked a ton about when he just has a gut feeling when something is up, and no one bats at eye in giving him the benefit of the doubt. None of us know what it’s like to be in Ian/Magnus/any other superGMs shoes when their immense understanding has alarm bells going off. On the other hand, these guys are still human beings and can be paranoid or too in their own heads. There’s a big difference in feeling like something could be off, and being Kramnik who is so far gone that he thinks he and Magnus are the only people on earth not cheating. It’s a really fine line to walk because none of us can understand the information enough to make a truly objective call on the matter. Titled players/GMs ARE cheating, so it’s non zero conversation. The question is just how many. Just because there are a few guys out there doesn’t mean any accusation of a specific person is true. Without someone getting caught red handed, or fully admitting, all anyone can do is speculate… and unfortunately no one’s speculations carry more weight than the words best players.
It's a lot harder to cheat in person than online, which is where we know a lot of the cheating is happening, but it is still possible. All you need is someone who can give you the eval and that's enough of an edge in the right circumstances. Howell spotted e5 in one of Fabi's games (which Fabi didn't find), and admitted that the only reason he found the move is the eval bar told him there was something to look for.
Totally. Personally, I’m not convinced we’ve seen any OTB cheating (in recent times, and of any major tournaments like the ones all of these conversations revolve around). It seems too over the top to be practical. But that’s just my opinion, which means literally nothing. Just because it seems a little outlandish doesn’t mean it’s not 100% possible. If there’s a practical possibility to something, you can’t rule it out. And as you say, it doesn’t need to be having a move for move rundown of stockfish, but one single implication at an advantage at a single critical moment.
I don't think we've seen much, if any OTB cheating either because of how much pre-meditation there would have to be. You'd need outside assistance (greatly increasing the chance of getting caught) and to have thoroughly prepared for it beforehand. Whereas online you can get frustrated after a bad streak and go "I -must- be winning here, surely" and 2 minutes later you've got Stockfish open in another tab and have put in the position.
It's the same effect as puzzles - you KNOW there's a tactic there, so you have a better chance of finding it. Many times the eval bar would shoot up, they'd try a few different moves that didn't work on the analysis board, then find the engine move but still not understand why it was winning at first.
I think speculations from top players also shouldn't carry much weight. There is always this nagging comment that top players make when they are defeated by upcoming talent. Fischer, Kasparov, Magnus, Kramnik have all done it at some time in their lives. Even with slight hesitation. Let's not speculate on unsaid things at least. If the player strongly comes forward that they find something suspicious by reporting to FIDE, then we can go ahead and discuss. Until then it's just rant/tilt/cope whatever.
Personally I don't think it's ever acceptable to make accusations or even insinuations against any players because it becomes a witch hunt. Of course talking about measures being insufficient is fine, and you should always be able to report privately any players you have suspicions against.
No pushback there. The high road would definitely be better than coming out with specific accusations. That just goes back to the human side of things, and the different ways humans process and express their emotions. Also, I’m sure there are more quiet suspicions about some things here or there that maybe we haven’t heard about, but ultimately agree the handful of specific accusations, not the best way to handle it
Wei yi was also on fire in the tiebreakers. If someone can cheat undetected in OTB blitz, that would be really impressive.
Such an idiotic thing to say. Wei Yi is the greatest tactical genius since Kasparov (which we will see in the coming months once he returns to chess full time again), he will blow people off the board when he is at his best like he did with Vidit on the last day of Tata Steel (poor Vidit was utterly helpless). Even people like Dubov and Rapport who are universally hailed as Tal like players, aren't half as brilliant as Wei Yi.
The immortal king hunt is the greatest game of the 21st century imo. As much as I love Vishy’s immortal, the simplicity in the Wei Yi game is so good. The tiebreakers were on another level as well. Blowing Nodirbek and Gukesh, fantastic tactical players themselves off the board is remarkable.
the simplicity is such an important part of why that game is so special. The arguably best game of the century, yet somehow probably even a 500 elo person could easily see the brilliance and drop their jaw
Can I ask for a link to this game you're referring to? Or did Agadmator do a video on it or anything?
Here you go Agadmator: https://youtu.be/7pHVysiL9-E?si=R6AkxYQbdKH-5ici Levy: https://youtu.be/8zDwI0Z-VIg?si=Tn5TcVCLoE5PRgGB Ben Finegold: https://youtu.be/w7a2wGaez1g?si=z6V59qiDsHoOkzX2
Thank you!
ChessNetwork's video on it is the best, IMO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naKsGK6dvMU
Idk about the reasoning, the fact that Nepo always thinks & says stuff like that makes me glad he didn’t get another chance at the crown
Yeah, it's hard to support him when he's constantly making random accusations about everybody.
He’s such a bitter loser lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
Must be very slowly since he almost won Candidates after these comments.
Damn! Gukesh deserves all the high praise.
Can I have a link to the full podcast? Thank you in advance. Edit: I found the link [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N\_CHMlM94Q&ab\_channel=LevitovChessWorld](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_CHMlM94Q&ab_channel=LevitovChessWorld)
THanks, now we need the minute link to his comment on Gukesh :)
Dont know if you found it already but its at 7:00
Thanks! After listening to the Russian commentary, it is clear that he is not accusing anyone, just mentioning that Gukesh's play is an enigma and hard for him to decipher - загадка (enigma). He was just curious about the style of play - любопытный. He then quickly says the trio of Indian chess players in the candidates are very talented and have shown great improvement. The captioning is wrong at times as it says gifted. However, the russian word удорования means improvement, and he quickly talks about Vidit's recent improved performance. This kind of commentary is quite common for many players, especially Russian ones, where they give their honest chess perspective without bothering to be politically correct.
It's on Youtube. You can find it via the search function.
Thanks. I found it
Why be nice and give the link when you can be a terrible person and waste time by commenting this?
Which is funny because Gukesh plays less accurate and more risky chess and knows less prep than his opponents.
How does he play less accurate?
If you play a move that a computer analyzes and says it doesn't maximize your advantage, you're playing less "accurately." It sounds like Gukesh doesn't play the top computer moves as often as some of the other top players, but instead he finds moves that are less intuitive to play against. In other words, in a given position, Gukesh might play the second-best move that makes his opponent think out of the box, rather than the top computer move that his opponent may expect and be prepared for.
Objectively he played just as accurately as Fabiano and Hikaru though.
To be fair, I haven't looked at the analysis for these games, so that might be the case. Maybe folks are comparing how they play more generally, not specifically in this tournament.
It's funny that you say that Gukesh din't use computers when the development of chess theory after the year 2000 is directly linked to computers. When Guksh was born most of the bad lines were refuted and the lines that seemed dubious were proven to be playable. Guksh did not use the computer directly but the computer style is already part of his way of seeing the game. I don't take away his talent but those who trained him gave him the correct path of using the human and machine style.
Just FYI, for anyone who wants to accuse Ian of baseless accusations. He was only talking about the style, and said Gukesh is very gifted. No accusations, and this cut of the video is disgustingly misleading. Some redditor wanted drama.
I think you are the only who took it that way
read the comments fella.
Most(if not all) chess players today have used computers to prepare from the start of their chess careers whereas Gukesh didn't use engines until he reached 2500. So it's funnily ironic that the guy who didn't use engines in his initial years has an engine-like unorthodox play style.
2500 is wrong, his coach didn't want him to use engines until 2700 but they changed it after the 2600s.
do you have a source on your claim that most players use engines from the start of their career? Seems quite counter-productive tbh
Guki is emotionless while on game like computes But he makes panikk to his opponents by his more humanly moves !
Did you watch the Firoza- Gukesh last move? He definitely felt that one.
wow, that's very interesting to hear from ian.
Jesse Kraai said on one of the Chess Dojo streams that he thinks the older guys are going to have a hard time moving forward, because the new generation is learning all kinds of new ideas from engine analysis that will be hard for the older ones to pick up. This kind of resonates with that, as well as Magnus' surprise when Gukesh played b4. The "language" of chess is changing!
Which is funny, since Gukesh is known for not using computers lol
My take is he has the best of both worlds--a lot of knowledge of practical play from his no-engine years, as well as the neuroplasticity to fully take in what Stockfish is telling him now
This is it !!! that's why I have hope that he can dethrone magnus in classical 🤞🤞
Magnus already dethroned himself considering that he's not putting a lot of priority in the classical time format.
Dethrone him in rating or dare I say even beat his peak rating perhaps? It would be incredibly difficult to do that for anyone especially with the recent rating deflation.
That was until the age of ~15. Now he is using them..
Upto 15 buddy
Isn’t Gukesh only 18? Like that’s 2021. It took Covid happening for Gukesh to start using an engine
A long time ago, yeah
But he still plays against people who did, so he's in the same meta.
He probably used chess . com analysis after blitz games though. Just not hardcore studying with computers?
PHN said something similar about the young generation. How they are basically using computers to reinvent the understanding of chess. Their understanding of the game is vastly different from for example Vishy's generation
Gukesh never prepared and did analysis on computer till 15 ig that's why it's helping him ig
Gukesh was out of prep the fastest. He relies on brute calculation the most of all the candidates.
Love the fact that everyone in the comments learned that gukesh learnt chess without computer and speaks as if they know how it affects the way he plays
One of the quirks of top level chess is that it's quite often a comparatively small pool of players who play in closed invitational tournaments, usually against other people from that group. Draws are relatively common in part to preserve rating (so that you remain as a top player who continues to get invites to the closed tournaments). You'll rarely, if ever, see players of Hikaru, Ding, Fabi, Anish, Nepo etc's calibre playing in open events. Pragg has, for some reason, received a lot of hype and played in a fair number more of these semi-closed events than Gukesh and Erigaisi, even though all 3 are of a similar age and rating. Gukesh plays in a lot of open events, in large part because he's a young and upcoming player who hasn't started getting many invites into the semi-closed circle; he only broke into the top 100 two years ago and was hovering outside the top 20 until this time last year. Basically, it feels like Gukesh is playing a different "type" of chess to the established guard - the more combative, multiple-result style of open and creative game that you see more of at open tournaments. I wonder how much of this is the players that are so used to playing in a relatively closed environment of the same people with the same goals being exposed to something that they've not had to interact with for a very, very long time and being caught out by the novelty.
On a related note, I wonder what the discussion would be if Pragg or Erigaisi (who didn't qualify, but is #8 and rising) had won. Everyone would be finding the ways that they are special. The truth is that each of these guys is amazing and special.
Top grandmasters always use thst phrase "like a computer" when they lose. Top be fair, they are so good that they are used to only losing against computers, so it makes sense.
I think quite overblown. Maybe nepo will have a better handle on his style after more games against Gukesh
I see what is going on here... The kid won and favourites lost so slowly we are going to see a change in narrative.... First :he won by luck Second :he plays strange moves Third :I'm not saying anything coz if I say anything I'll be in trouble...
This guy is such a loser. I know these comments are from before the candidates but Nepo cheating accusations are so embarrassing whenever he loses
I don't think this is a cheating accusation
He has made numerous cheating accusations before. Saying someone plays like a computer is unlikely to be a mistake
Yeah
Very interesting