Anand in interview – on intuition, creativity and blitz chess

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5282

Fragment which took my attention:


To introduce a contrarian note about computers, former world champion Karpov has gone on record saying that using computers has made you more mechanical and less creative. Your comments?

I would disagree. Strongly. I would say in general that Karpov is probably that generation which missed computers completely. You remember my match with him in Advanced Chess in 1999. He couldn’t use the computer. And it is not fair, his generation managed without computers. There was this whole generation, who couldn’t get used to it – Polugaevsky, Geller. I still remember their impressions when I showed them my computer – “this is all toys for children” – they had this attitude. Probably they would have felt it much more strongly when they heard that Kasparov had lost this game and now humans were losing regularly to computers. They saw chess in a much more intellectual light, but as a human intellectual thing.

So I would respectfully disagree. Definitely I respect Karpov a lot. He is really the generation before and he doesn’t have a good feel for the computer’s influence. I would say nowadays it is impossible to work without computers. And you don’t become mechanical at all. It allows you to do incredibly creative things. I mean there are positions I can work on where it was not feasible to work on alone. The amount of work is too much. But now with the machine you can break it down so easily. At one level, in one sense, I would agree with him. Certain areas in chess have become mechanical but in some new areas creativity flowers.

Now you have “computer moves”. Aesthetically you have these ugly moves.

Again, at initial stages, I don’t know whether it was because computers were weaker or our eye was so jaundiced against certain moves that we took longer to adapt. I don’t know which of the two, it could have been both. But nowadays, computers are stronger so the suggestions are more respectable. And you can see the analysis and see why and grasp it immediately. I would also say we have developed a certain tolerance for unusual moves. I mean, humans themselves play unusual moves nowadays. When I see some move my first reaction is no longer “Oh, this is ghastly”. My first reaction is “aha, the tactics are working” or something. So I would say it is an evolutionary thing. We have slowly learnt that our understanding of chess was not complete and computers have gotten better.

Every once in a while the computer will make a ghastly move. There is no question that in the King’s Indian when it plays Re2 or something in some position you understand that it just has no clue and there are so many examples in closed positions where they do ridiculous things. Very often the moves they point out, while ugly, have some tactical justification. And we have slowly learnt that a move is good if it works tactically, and it is not beneath contempt. A move can stand on its merits simply by being tactical rather than having any strategical depth.

Building on that can you say that in the last century you had the Romantics, the Hyper-modernists, the various schools. All that is out of the window. Now whatever works, works. For example, you can have moves like 1.e4 c5 2. Qh5 played by Nakamura [Anand smiles]. So can you say that style is dead?

Not really. When we look back we tend to think of them as Romantics, Neo-Romantics and so on. But they also went with what worked. If something didn’t work they stopped doing it. Capablanca might have been very dismissive of Hypermodern openings, but he started playing them himself in the 30s. In the 20s he said okay this is all rubbish, the Queen’s Gambit declined is good.

In chess this feeling has always been there, if you can’t refute something it has a right to exist. It is not a modern thing. The latest you can associate that trend with is the 1940s with the Soviet grandmasters, the Soviet school of chess which started with people like Geller, Petrosian, Smyslov. It was a very strong feeling they had that if something worked, even if you had prejudices or you decided on some basis, the way you were brought up, that move was ugly, you still played it.

Let’s remember, openings like the Sveshnikov were laughed at when they first appeared. But after twenty years of trying to refute it people said well maybe there is something to it. We look back and think of that period as innocent or romantic, but they were not playing for beauty, they were playing for points. I make the same mistake when looking back. It is a very strong effect. But you have to remember, when you read books on what they thought, they try incredibly hard to find something that works, and if you look at it from that standpoint, the standpoint of their views, then they were willing to make any move that they thought would win. Our sense for aesthetics has also improved, as I said, our tolerance for certain moves has improved by seeing it more often. Here I would say it’s imposing your personal views rather than letting the position decide.

Quote:

"To introduce a contrarian note about computers, former world
champion Karpov has gone on record saying that using computers
has made you more mechanical and less creative. Your comments? "

Anand Answer:

"I would disagree. Strongly. "

Well he is hardly going to agree is he?

Is he claimng to be a better player than everyone since Capablanca
because he knows how to work a computer?

He might be the current World Champion but who is there to beat
these days. Nobody but Mechs.

( GM = Good Machines) 😕

Have you retrieved that chess program from the church's roof top yet?

No , they are still there, but I now have Fritz 10.

Unfortunately my Windows 3.1 does not like it so it may gather dust
for a few months/years/decades.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
No , they are still there, but I now have Fritz 10.

Unfortunately my Windows 3.1 does not like it so it may gather dust
for a few months/years/decades.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Quote:

"To introduce a contrarian note about computers, former world
champion Karpov has gone on record saying that using computers
has made you more mechanical and less creative. Your comments? "

Anand Answer:

"I would disagree. Strongly. "

Well he is hardly going to agree is he?

Is he claimng to be a better player than everyone since ...[text shortened]... Champion but who is there to beat
these days. Nobody but Mechs.

( GM = Good Machines) 😕

Originally posted by Korch

I have impression that some people think - chess is area where no development is possible....

Originally posted by greenpawn34
...and I'm one of them.

Chess reached it's peak at the Opera in 1858 with the Morphy game.
Nothing has topped that one.
And Paul Chalrles Morphy did not need a computer to pull that one off.

Robbie - do you not believe I still run Windows 3.1

http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=5

I do like how Anand said "Here I would say it’s imposing your personal views rather than letting the position decide." Computers have helped to break some earlier "dogmatic" thinking. Just because it looks wierd or is considered a computer move doesn't matter if it has justification and it "works." Computers can help people see that there is hope in positions that may on the surface seem hopeless. I think it was an article I read in Chess Life recently where Alkehine once said that a master wouldn't take material if it meant he had to go on the defense for the next 20 moves. Computers have shown us that many time it's ok to take the material and hang on because the attack can most definitly be thwarted, and after that 20 move defense, you probably can win the game.

They say that it's easier for the defensive player to make a mistake, which means the attacker usually has an advantage, yet computers have showed us that objectively, the defensive player had the better position and accurate defense will win. In other words, computers are good in the sense that they have broadened our chess mind and broke down some dogmatic barriers. A win is a win, no matter what style or strategy got you there.

I think the main downside of computers, and this is mostly at the highest levels of play, is that there is too much reliance on them. It's great to use them to prepare and analyze, but not to the point of mimicking them or using them as a crutch. Sometimes I think that grandmasters rely so much on them for opening prep that when someone springs a novelty or a move they didn't analyze with there machine, they become totally "lost." I'm no expert, but it seemed pretty bad in that game in the Topolov-Kamsky match when Topolov played a novelty and Kamsky had to think for about an hour, putting himself in terrible time trouble which cost him the game. I can see going into a long think at a new move, but really, that long, costing you the game? Don't some of these grandmasters have something "in the tank" when something is out of prep?

I'm just saying that it seems many grandmasters today have a much tougher time at the point when they are out of prep than grandmasters of the past had. Maybe it could be that the game is tougher because of all the extra knowledge and computer analysis? I don't know. Are grandmasters today better, worse, or the same at working out problems over the board as they were in the past? I feel that not having computers made the old grandmasters rely on themselves more, making them better at solving problems over the board, where today's master rely on the computer to analyze and have a tougher time working something new over the board. Looks like Anand disagrees, and he may be right, especially since I do think he is a great player and has loads of talent. When he was making his rise he was crushing grandmasters in standard time controls only using up 8 minutes of his clock!!! That seems like someone who can really play the board. I think he is one of the very creative and talented players today.

Originally posted by Korch
In that game opponents of Morphy played in beginners level ...... against weaker opponents its not big deal to crush your opponent in such a way.

Quote:

"he was crushing grandmasters in standard time controls only using
up 8 minutes of his clock!!! "

That is because he hit them with home/computer preparation and
theses dull GM's let him do it. They lean on theory like a crutch.

Fire up your database. Look at Anand's losses.
They are terrible. When his memory fails him or he loses the thread
he really is just a normal avergage chess player.

No imagination, no reall skill, he has brought nothing new to the game.
Karpov summed him up correctly - a mechanical player.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
...and I'm one of them.

Chess reached it's peak at the Opera in 1858 with the Morphy game.
Nothing has topped that one.
And Paul Chalrles Morphy did not need a computer to pull that one off.

Robbie - do you not believe I still run Windows 3.1

http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=5

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Quote:

"he was crushing grandmasters in standard time controls only using
up 8 minutes of his clock!!! "

That is because he hit them with home/computer preparation and
theses dull GM's let him do it. They lean on theory like a crutch.

Fire up your database. Look at Anand's losses.
They are terrible. When his memory fails him or he loses the ...[text shortened]... has brought nothing new to the game.
Karpov summed him up correctly - a mechanical player.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Wrong Korch.

The Duke of Brunswick and his pal were top players. 😕

They should have put the pieces back in the box and never brought
them out again. That night Chess had just been bust.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, Oh great and illustrious greenpawn, i believe, i believe, but don't you need to wind it up with a large key to make it work, with you my friend, nothing is impossible!