Answers.Body: <p>The knowledge of previous generations was summed up in Aron Nimzowitsch's book, published in 1929, called <em>My System</em>. The advances in chess knowledge up to Kasparov's time are best summed up in John Watson's 1998 book <em>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch</em>.</p>
  <p>It is perhaps worth revisiting <em>My System</em> to remind ourselves of some of what was knowledge in 1929:</p>
  <ol>
  <li>Control of the center, by both pawns and pieces</li>
  <li>Rapid development</li>
  <li>Prophylaxis as both overprotection of important squares and thwarting the opponent's plans</li>
  <li>Strengths and weaknesses of the IQP (isolated queen's pawn)</li>
  <li>The importance of the two bishops</li>
  <li>Pawn chains (e.g. French Defense)</li>
  <li>Importance of open files and of the 7th and 8th ranks for rooks</li>
  <li>Centralization of the king and minor pieces in the endgame</li>
  </ol>
  <p>In between Nimzowitsch and Watson it's worth mentioning Ludek Pachman and his 3 volume <em>Complete Chess Strategy</em> first published in Czech in 1960. He deals extensively with the <strong>Minority Attack</strong>, which was around in Nimzowitsch's time (Capablanca used it) but didn't make it into <em>My System</em>.</p>
  <p>Watson's main departure from Nimzowitsch centers around his principle of <strong>Rule Independence.</strong> What this boils down to is the idea that rules, a la Nimzowitsch, are for general guidance only and are not set in stone. Calculation is more important than rules. In this respect Watson captures the essence of modern chess in the age of computers. Perhaps also worth noting that Kasparov was the first of the computer generation pioneering, as he did, use of Chessbase.</p>
  <p>To demonstrate the principle of rule independence Watson borrows an Andy Soltis example:</p>
  <pre><code>[fen &quot;&quot;]
  [Title &quot;Khlavin vs Zhdanov, Latvian Champs 1961&quot;]
  [Startply &quot;20&quot;]
  
  1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 g6 4. d4 Bg7 5. h3 a6 6. Bf4 Nf6 7. e5 Ng8 8. Qd2 b5 9. Be2 h6 10. O-O-O e6 11. g4 Nd7 12. Bg3 Bf8 13. Rdf1 Nb6 14. Nd1 a5 15. Ne1 b4 16. Nd3 Nc4 17. Qe1 Qb6 18. b3 Qxd4 19. bxc4 Qa1+ 20. Kd2 dxc4 21. Nf4 Qa2 22. Ke3 Bb7 23. Qd2 g5 24. Nh5 c3 25. Qd3 Rd8 26. Qe4 Bc5+ 27. Kf3 Rd4 28. Qe3 Qd5 0-1
  </code></pre>
  <p>After Black's 10th move Soltis writes, sarcastically,</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It doesn't take long to conclude that White has a very strong game. He has developed nearly all of his pieces while Black's only developed piece, his king's bishop, bites on granite. Black's queenside is full of holes on dark squares and he has just locked in his queen's bishop. A quick mating is assured, you might conclude. And you'd be right.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Dynamics change everything. Pieces gain their values not from a hard and fast rule but from the position and their possibilities which are ever changing. The <strong>Initiative</strong> has a value which can also change everything. Watson devotes a chapter to the <strong>Exchange Sacrifice</strong>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-28T17:20:10.500Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-08-28T17:20:10.500Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>This question needs a book.  A rough sequence of changing understanding could be.</p>
  <ol>
  <li>importance of rapid development, control the center, and activity.</li>
  <li>importance of positional considerations over activity, endgames.</li>
  <li>importance of activity in consideration of position.  Positional Exchange Sacrifice.  Accepting structural problems to achieve activity.</li>
  <li>professionalism, deep preparation, opening and endgame mastery.</li>
  <li>importance of concrete calculation over all other considerations. Attuned to the exceptions of the rules to the position at all times.</li>
  </ol>
  <p>This is a woefully inadequate list.  I could tell a whole story just about time controls and time management.  To learn more about Garry's take I recommend his amazing series &quot;My Great Predecessors.&quot;</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-28T13:41:58.967Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-10-29T12:23:38.070Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-10-29T12:23:38.070Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Answers.Body: <p>I'd second that this answer needs a book (I'd read it). Any new edition though is bound to summarize all of the beforeanswers, which I'll call &quot;the classics&quot;, and incorporate what AlphaZero &quot;invented&quot; as a new style of chess, which may very well go along the lines laid out above.</p>
  <p>These last five years however have shown that the matches between it and e.g. Magnus Carlsen have spawned new schools of thinking. Carlsen employed &quot;new&quot; moves into his own playing since. Any answer to the questions very much ought to include these recent developments.</p>
  <p>Since I lack serious playing skills myself (and just made this account to contribute) here is what I'd expect to be spelled out in it:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>in their 2019 book <em>Game Changer</em>, Natasha Regan and Matthew Sadler spell out how AI plays differently and &quot;inhuman&quot;</li>
  <li>&quot;No matter whether efficiency means sacrificing material or being incredibly solid, they will do what is required! Regardless of whether they are the pinnacle of AI or the Chess World Champion.&quot; - referring to players. Quote from <a href="https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/873.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/873.pdf</a></li>
  <li>a paper by company DeepMind, <em>Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero</em> should also provide insights</li>
  <li>On chess.com theres also a lengthy article with much appreciated details: <a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/how-alphazero-learns-chess" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.chess.com/news/view/how-alphazero-learns-chess</a></li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T12:10:41.157Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-08-31T12:10:41.157Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: raddaqii
Answers.Body: <p>YiFan's answer is excellent, but I think one piece of knowledge that emerged with the advent of computers can be formulated concisely: <strong>we are now much more confident that chess is a draw.</strong></p>
  <p>Before, at top-level chess White often played the &quot;most critical&quot; line in the most topical opening, Black responded in kind, and they would debate whether white gets a winning advantage or not. Kasparov won plenty of games out of the openings, and one may say he was arguing, by his play, that chess is a win: &quot;I have an advantage in the most principal line, and I also have an advantage in sidelines, because they are inferior.&quot;</p>
  <p>Nowadays, while some lines were &quot;refuted&quot;, the overall trend is that black can make a draw in many, many ways - <em>most</em> sound opening systems have a path to equality. Not only these old main lines are a draw, but also many of the &quot;inferior&quot; sidelines are drawn, in more than one way. So, nobody is trying to prove that they can get opening advantage against the best play, like Kasparov did in his time. It has shifted to surprising the opponent.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-06-28T15:52:42.253Z
Answers.Text: YiFan's answer is wrong! Top players today calculate and evaluate positions better than top players from the past.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-10-29T08:47:53.220Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-06-22T07:56:15.763Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-06-22T07:56:15.763Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kostya_I
Body: <p>In an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVa0THWUWw&amp;t=2225s" rel="noreferrer">interview</a>, Garry Kasparow stated that each generation of chess players knows more about the game than the previous one. He applies this thought concretely to the question of who is better - him or Magnus Carlsen. He seems to imply that Carlsen is the stronger player because of this.</p>
  <p>What are the kinds of things that succeeding generations have learnt? Have there been well-known breakthroughs in understanding chess?</p>
  
Tags: <strategy><theory><history><study>
Title: What do modern chess players understand about the game that previous generations did not?
ThreadText: # What do modern chess players understand about the game that previous generations did not?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-28)
  
  In an [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVa0THWUWw&t=2225s), Garry Kasparow stated that each generation of chess players knows more about the game than the previous one. He applies this thought concretely to the question of who is better - him or Magnus Carlsen. He seems to imply that Carlsen is the stronger player because of this.
  
  What are the kinds of things that succeeding generations have learnt? Have there been well-known breakthroughs in understanding chess?
  
  **Tags:** strategy, theory, history, study
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2022-08-28. Score: 26
  
  The knowledge of previous generations was summed up in Aron Nimzowitsch's book, published in 1929, called My System. The advances in chess knowledge up to Kasparov's time are best summed up in John Watson's 1998 book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch.
  It is perhaps worth revisiting My System to remind ourselves of some of what was knowledge in 1929:
  
  Control of the center, by both pawns and pieces
  Rapid development
  Prophylaxis as both overprotection of important squares and thwarting the opponent's plans
  Strengths and weaknesses of the IQP (isolated queen's pawn)
  The importance of the two bishops
  Pawn chains (e.g. French Defense)
  Importance of open files and of the 7th and 8th ranks for rooks
  Centralization of the king and minor pieces in the endgame
  
  In between Nimzowitsch and Watson it's worth mentioning Ludek Pachman and his 3 volume Complete Chess Strategy first published in Czech in 1960. He deals extensively with the Minority Attack, which was around in Nimzowitsch's time (Capablanca used it) but didn't make it into My System.
  Watson's main departure from Nimzowitsch centers around his principle of Rule Independence. What this boils down to is the idea that rules, a la Nimzowitsch, are for general guidance only and are not set in stone. Calculation is more important than rules. In this respect Watson captures the essence of modern chess in the age of computers. Perhaps also worth noting that Kasparov was the first of the computer generation pioneering, as he did, use of Chessbase.
  To demonstrate the principle of rule independence Watson borrows an Andy Soltis example:
  [fen ""]
  [Title "Khlavin vs Zhdanov, Latvian Champs 1961"]
  [Startply "20"]
  
  1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 g6 4. d4 Bg7 5. h3 a6 6. Bf4 Nf6 7. e5 Ng8 8. Qd2 b5 9. Be2 h6 10. O-O-O e6 11. g4 Nd7 12. Bg3 Bf8 13. Rdf1 Nb6 14. Nd1 a5 15. Ne1 b4 16. Nd3 Nc4 17. Qe1 Qb6 18. b3 Qxd4 19. bxc4 Qa1+ 20. Kd2 dxc4 21. Nf4 Qa2 22. Ke3 Bb7 23. Qd2 g5 24. Nh5 c3 25. Qd3 Rd8 26. Qe4 Bc5+ 27. Kf3 Rd4 28. Qe3 Qd5 0-1
  
  After Black's 10th move Soltis writes, sarcastically,
  
  It doesn't take long to conclude that White has a very strong game. He has developed nearly all of his pieces while Black's only developed piece, his king's bishop, bites on granite. Black's queenside is full of holes on dark squares and he has just locked in his queen's bishop. A quick mating is assured, you might conclude. And you'd be right.
  
  Dynamics change everything. Pieces gain their values not from a hard and fast rule but from the position and their possibilities which are ever changing. The Initiative has a value which can also change everything. Watson devotes a chapter to the Exchange Sacrifice.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2022-08-28. Score: 9
  
  This question needs a book. A rough sequence of changing understanding could be.
  
  1. importance of rapid development, control the center, and activity.
  2. importance of positional considerations over activity, endgames.
  3. importance of activity in consideration of position. Positional Exchange Sacrifice. Accepting structural problems to achieve activity.
  4. professionalism, deep preparation, opening and endgame mastery.
  5. importance of concrete calculation over all other considerations. Attuned to the exceptions of the rules to the position at all times.
  
  This is a woefully inadequate list. I could tell a whole story just about time controls and time management. To learn more about Garry's take I recommend his amazing series "My Great Predecessors."
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2022-08-31. Score: 1
  
  I'd second that this answer needs a book (I'd read it). Any new edition though is bound to summarize all of the beforeanswers, which I'll call "the classics", and incorporate what AlphaZero "invented" as a new style of chess, which may very well go along the lines laid out above.
  
  These last five years however have shown that the matches between it and e.g. Magnus Carlsen have spawned new schools of thinking. Carlsen employed "new" moves into his own playing since. Any answer to the questions very much ought to include these recent developments.
  
  Since I lack serious playing skills myself (and just made this account to contribute) here is what I'd expect to be spelled out in it:
  
  * in their 2019 book *Game Changer*, Natasha Regan and Matthew Sadler spell out how AI plays differently and "inhuman"
  * "No matter whether efficiency means sacrificing material or being incredibly solid, they will do what is required! Regardless of whether they are the pinnacle of AI or the Chess World Champion." - referring to players. Quote from <https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/873.pdf>
  * a paper by company DeepMind, *Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero* should also provide insights
  * On chess.com theres also a lengthy article with much appreciated details: <https://www.chess.com/news/view/how-alphazero-learns-chess>
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2022-10-29. Score: 1
  
  YiFan's answer is excellent, but I think one piece of knowledge that emerged with the advent of computers can be formulated concisely: **we are now much more confident that chess is a draw.**
  
  Before, at top-level chess White often played the "most critical" line in the most topical opening, Black responded in kind, and they would debate whether white gets a winning advantage or not. Kasparov won plenty of games out of the openings, and one may say he was arguing, by his play, that chess is a win: "I have an advantage in the most principal line, and I also have an advantage in sidelines, because they are inferior."
  
  Nowadays, while some lines were "refuted", the overall trend is that black can make a draw in many, many ways - *most* sound opening systems have a path to equality. Not only these old main lines are a draw, but also many of the "inferior" sidelines are drawn, in more than one way. So, nobody is trying to prove that they can get opening advantage against the best play, like Kasparov did in his time. It has shifted to surprising the opponent.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: YiFan's answer is wrong! Top players today calculate and evaluate positions better than top players from the past.  
  
  ---
  
  