Answers.Body: <p>My answer is - Yes. A simple example is the use of endgame tablebase. Many positions, which were thought to be drawn, now have a winning line. IMO this is a new idea. One day computers might uncover that castling is bad - it is a new idea, doesn't matter if it was achieved by brute force.</p>
  
  <p>ps: even though computers work on fixed algorithms, they can uncover new ideas. Same algorithm can return different results when run for longer duration and/or better hardware. In the end, chess is deterministic and finite. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-11-08T15:25:26.187Z
Answers.Text: `One day computers might uncover that castling is bad` bongcloud?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-30T07:43:40.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-30T07:43:40.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nishanth
Answers.Body: <p>I am surprised that a more up-to-date answer is not added here yet. Endgame tables is one area where major improvements happened (see <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/2763/14678">Nishanth's answer</a>). But, I think the opening is the main area revolutionized by the AI wave. By the way, these are not the only areas of remarkable improvement. In fact, some engine games are now featured in the list of games that revolutionized chess (e.g. see the article <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/7-games-that-transformed-chess" rel="nofollow noreferrer">7 Games That Transformed Chess</a>). According to the Authors of <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/9056918184" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Game Changer</a>, the book on AlphaZero, the engine gives more importance to piece mobility and king safety, compared to non-AI engines or even most humans. <strong>Studies on what factors these advanced engines give more importance to could revolutionize chess theory as a whole. After all, ascertaining the importance of chess themes in a way different from the traditional wisdom is exactly how many movements in chess theory such as hypermodern school were born.</strong></p>
  <p>Opening is one area where AI wave made remarkable improvements. AI-based engines have introduced several opening ideas that challenge conventional wisdom, and some that use the known ideas in novel ways.</p>
  <p>Quote from a <a href="https://www.chess.com/blog/OnlineChessTeacher/chess-and-computers-how-technology-changed-the-game" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chess.com article</a>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Before the advent of engines, opening theory was largely developed
  through human trial and error over decades of play. Grandmasters would
  experiment with different lines and ideas, and over time, certain
  lines would rise to prominence while others were discarded.</p>
  <p>Today, engines have accelerated this process exponentially. Top
  players use engines to test out new ideas, find improvements in
  well-known lines, and discover new theoretical novelties that could
  catch their opponents off guard.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Specific examples for this include those mentioned in the following quote from the article <a href="https://softwarechess.com/how-chess-engines-have-shaped-grandmaster-play/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How Chess Engines Have Shaped Grandmaster Play?</a></p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Chess engines have revolutionized the study of openings, enabling
  grandmasters to delve deeper into established lines and discover
  entirely new variations. For instance, the Ruy Lopez, a classic
  opening, has seen an explosion of new ideas thanks to engine analysis.
  Grandmasters now use engines to refine and innovate openings, as well
  as to uncover hidden resources. An example of this can be seen in the
  World Chess Championship match between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano
  Caruana in 2018. In Game 1, Carlsen’s novelty with 6.d3, discovered
  with engine assistance, caught Caruana off guard and set the tone for
  the entire match.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>A quote from <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/7-games-that-transformed-chess" rel="nofollow noreferrer">another</a> chess.com article.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>AlphaZero's style was deeply counterintuitive for a human and a bit
  closer to the Romantics or Tal than most chess players would probably
  have expected. &quot;AlphaZero appeared to target the opponent's king
  directly from the opening moves and sacrificed material freely to
  achieve its goals,&quot; wrote GM Matthew Sadler and WIM Natasha Regan in
  their book on AlphaZero, Game Changer.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>A specific example is featured in the article <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/stockfish-on-the-classics-kasparovs-gambit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stockfish On The Classics: Kasparov's Gambit</a>.</p>
  <p>For more specific examples and details of what we learned from AI engines, see  videos in the <a href="https://www.chess.com/videos/library?library_search%5Bkeyword%5D=learn%20from%20the%20best&amp;library_search%5B_token%5D=798196e43c322cc36791d3d9f.uHM7N3yWvHGUriaEOSkA34169sy7ykQZfLl66rs9xac.0Dh3Wxjd-1zCm07dCUNjhudI2_3w_hxrOYgA39dyjf_iF1peJP__SeXIEg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Learn from the best</a> series in chess.com. Some compilations from these series: <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-leela-chess-zero" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Leela</a>, <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-stockfish" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stockfish</a>. The videos in the <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-stockfish" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stockfish</a> compilation specifically feature opening ideas.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-11-03T20:14:59.813Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-11-04T02:23:57.600Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-11-04T02:23:57.600Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.Body: <p>Computers are based on algorithms written by humans, which are based on knowledge and concepts known to humans. They do not work based on abstract chess ideas. Computers are not known for creativity, so I would say that the answer to your question is no.</p>
  
  <p>They will certainly find moves in a position that GMs have not thought of before, but that is not the same as a new chess idea. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-31T04:42:27.233Z
Answers.Text: @JamesChristopher That is [Lady Lovelace's Objection](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/#LadLovObj) to AI, the position that computers cannot think farther than their programmers. It is effectively equivalent to claiming that no-one can be smarter (or more creative) than their parents.
Answers.UserDisplayName: lily
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-29T20:07:43.267Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-29T20:07:43.267Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: James Christopher
Body: <p>Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?</p>
  
  <p>And if so, how can humans notice?</p>
  
  <p><b>Addendum:</b> I understand the position of James Christopher in his answer, but my question goes a little beyond that. It is possible for the computer to find a winning move without understanding the idea behind it, and thus to win the game. If afterwards a human notices that the move discloses a new theme or idea never before seen, that would qualify as a positive answer.</p>
  
  <p><b>Addenddendum:</b> We have a linguistic problem here. Let me clarify: The computer does not need to <i>have a new idea</i> or even understand what it is doing. But it can find a move that wins the game, and later, when people analyze what happened, they realize "oh! this move wins <i>because</i> of such-and-such!" The computer does not need to know that it forked the king and queen, it just evaluates the material gain and decides that the knight move is best. <b>We</b> call it a fork and add a section in the basic tactics chapter.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-09-02T20:20:21.757Z
Comments.Text: Interesting question, In my opinion computers dont play chess but do something that just looks like it. The way they do it is simply through number crunching algorithmes. It must be said that in their programming there are some heuristics that could be seen as rudimentary ideas about the game. To answer your question I am sure computers produced moves that showed something new about the game but they didnt uncover any ideas. Computers can not think and ideas belong to the realm of humans. So to notice an idea needs someone to interpret the move or sequence of moves and form some sort of genera
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Dennet
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-09-03T05:01:50.310Z
Comments.Text: possibly related to my question ["Have we found every existing tactic?"](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2275/have-we-found-every-existing-tactic)
Comments.UserDisplayName: ajax333221
Tags: <engines>
Title: Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?
ThreadText: # Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-29)
  
  Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?
  
  And if so, how can humans notice?
  
  **Addendum:** I understand the position of username_6 username_6 in his answer, but my question goes a little beyond that. It is possible for the computer to find a winning move without understanding the idea behind it, and thus to win the game. If afterwards a human notices that the move discloses a new theme or idea never before seen, that would qualify as a positive answer.
  
  **Addenddendum:** We have a linguistic problem here. Let me clarify: The computer does not need to *have a new idea* or even understand what it is doing. But it can find a move that wins the game, and later, when people analyze what happened, they realize "oh! this move wins *because* of such-and-such!" The computer does not need to know that it forked the king and queen, it just evaluates the material gain and decides that the knight move is best. **We** call it a fork and add a section in the basic tactics chapter.
  
  **Tags:** engines
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Interesting question, In my opinion computers dont play chess but do something that just looks like it. The way they do it is simply through number crunching algorithmes. It must be said that in their programming there are some heuristics that could be seen as rudimentary ideas about the game. To answer your question I am sure computers produced moves that showed something new about the game but they didnt uncover any ideas. Computers can not think and ideas belong to the realm of humans. So to notice an idea needs someone to interpret the move or sequence of moves and form some sort of genera  
  > **username_2**: possibly related to my question ["Have we found every existing tactic?"](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2275/have-we-found-every-existing-tactic)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-08-30. Score: 12
  
  My answer is - Yes. A simple example is the use of endgame tablebase. Many positions, which were thought to be drawn, now have a winning line. IMO this is a new idea. One day computers might uncover that castling is bad - it is a new idea, doesn't matter if it was achieved by brute force.
  
  ps: even though computers work on fixed algorithms, they can uncover new ideas. Same algorithm can return different results when run for longer duration and/or better hardware. In the end, chess is deterministic and finite.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: `One day computers might uncover that castling is bad` bongcloud?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2024-11-03. Score: 3
  
  I am surprised that a more up-to-date answer is not added here yet. Endgame tables is one area where major improvements happened (see [username_3's answer](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/2763/14678)). But, I think the opening is the main area revolutionized by the AI wave. By the way, these are not the only areas of remarkable improvement. In fact, some engine games are now featured in the list of games that revolutionized chess (e.g. see the article [7 Games That Transformed Chess](https://www.chess.com/article/view/7-games-that-transformed-chess)). According to the Authors of [Game Changer](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/9056918184), the book on AlphaZero, the engine gives more importance to piece mobility and king safety, compared to non-AI engines or even most humans. **Studies on what factors these advanced engines give more importance to could revolutionize chess theory as a whole. After all, ascertaining the importance of chess themes in a way different from the traditional wisdom is exactly how many movements in chess theory such as hypermodern school were born.**
  
  Opening is one area where AI wave made remarkable improvements. AI-based engines have introduced several opening ideas that challenge conventional wisdom, and some that use the known ideas in novel ways.
  
  Quote from a [chess.com article](https://www.chess.com/blog/OnlineChessTeacher/chess-and-computers-how-technology-changed-the-game):
  
  > Before the advent of engines, opening theory was largely developed
  > through human trial and error over decades of play. Grandmasters would
  > experiment with different lines and ideas, and over time, certain
  > lines would rise to prominence while others were discarded.
  >
  > Today, engines have accelerated this process exponentially. Top
  > players use engines to test out new ideas, find improvements in
  > well-known lines, and discover new theoretical novelties that could
  > catch their opponents off guard.
  
  Specific examples for this include those mentioned in the following quote from the article [How Chess Engines Have Shaped Grandmaster Play?](https://softwarechess.com/how-chess-engines-have-shaped-grandmaster-play/)
  
  > Chess engines have revolutionized the study of openings, enabling
  > grandmasters to delve deeper into established lines and discover
  > entirely new variations. For instance, the Ruy Lopez, a classic
  > opening, has seen an explosion of new ideas thanks to engine analysis.
  > Grandmasters now use engines to refine and innovate openings, as well
  > as to uncover hidden resources. An example of this can be seen in the
  > World Chess Championship match between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano
  > Caruana in 2018. In Game 1, Carlsen’s novelty with 6.d3, discovered
  > with engine assistance, caught Caruana off guard and set the tone for
  > the entire match.
  
  A quote from [another](https://www.chess.com/article/view/7-games-that-transformed-chess) chess.com article.
  
  > AlphaZero's style was deeply counterintuitive for a human and a bit
  > closer to the Romantics or Tal than most chess players would probably
  > have expected. "AlphaZero appeared to target the opponent's king
  > directly from the opening moves and sacrificed material freely to
  > achieve its goals," wrote GM Matthew Sadler and WIM Natasha Regan in
  > their book on AlphaZero, Game Changer.
  
  A specific example is featured in the article [Stockfish On The Classics: Kasparov's Gambit](https://www.chess.com/article/view/stockfish-on-the-classics-kasparovs-gambit).
  
  For more specific examples and details of what we learned from AI engines, see videos in the [Learn from the best](https://www.chess.com/videos/library?library_search%5Bkeyword%5D=learn%20from%20the%20best&library_search%5B_token%5D=798196e43c322cc36791d3d9f.uHM7N3yWvHGUriaEOSkA34169sy7ykQZfLl66rs9xac.0Dh3Wxjd-1zCm07dCUNjhudI2_3w_hxrOYgA39dyjf_iF1peJP__SeXIEg) series in chess.com. Some compilations from these series: [Leela](https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-leela-chess-zero), [Stockfish](https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-stockfish). The videos in the [stockfish](https://www.chess.com/article/view/learn-from-the-best-stockfish) compilation specifically feature opening ideas.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2013-08-29. Score: 0
  
  Computers are based on algorithms written by humans, which are based on knowledge and concepts known to humans. They do not work based on abstract chess ideas. Computers are not known for creativity, so I would say that the answer to your question is no.
  
  They will certainly find moves in a position that GMs have not thought of before, but that is not the same as a new chess idea.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: @username_6 That is [Lady Lovelace's Objection](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/#LadLovObj) to AI, the position that computers cannot think farther than their programmers. It is effectively equivalent to claiming that no-one can be smarter (or more creative) than their parents.  
  
  ---
  
  