Answers.Body: <p>Define &quot;understand&quot; ;-)</p>
  <p>Humans are notorious information compressors. Just take a very simple chess example: KR/K. Countless times, as a trainer, I explained two methods to mate: boxing in and check while in opposition. Both are simple enough to be learned by a total beginner. Add a few rules of thumb to cover special cases (stalemate and so) and yes, they &quot;understood&quot; KR/K.</p>
  <p>But now take a tablebase of KR/K. The shortest mate usually is a combination of both methods. No shortcuts! Thus, it would be quite tough for a human to (quite pointlessly) learn this because it is just a big heap of information that won't fit into working memory. And when it comes to, say, KRN/KNN, we're way over our limits.</p>
  <p>My verdict thus is that the statements &quot;chess is easy&quot; and &quot;chess is hard&quot; are not mutually exclusive (remember the Indian saying that a gnat can bathe in it and an elephant drown?) but merely ill-defined by using &quot;chess&quot; pars pro toto:
  Yes, chess is easy enough that a super grandmaster can hold a draw 99.9% of the time against a colleague without risk if inclined so, but chess is hard enough that the computer will clobber the super grandmaster. Context matters!</p>
  <p>Further sidenotes:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>The style of, say, Alpha Zero is not ineffable per se, and in fact, the book &quot;Game Changer&quot; exactly tries to explain it in human terms.</li>
  <li>&quot;Q=9P&quot; is &quot;nowhere&quot; coded in Alpha Zero. A neural net doesn't work this way, there is no &quot;master neuron&quot; to fiddle with and set the connection strengths to the equivalent of 8P! And I daresay it's even impossible to find out, because you merely can enter positions Q+X vs. 9P+X one by one and ask Alpha Zero to assign them, and as each position will have additional individual properties, you can't really isolate the material aspect.</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-19T11:41:49.687Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-12-19T21:54:00.160Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-12-19T21:54:00.160Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Body: <p>Many years ago, I think it was Capablanca who said chess was too easy and I think also, long before computers could play a decent, the &quot;draw death&quot; of chess was discussed.</p>
  <p>But can't Stockfish beat any human? Even if the world champ humans has white and sets out to draw, I believe (based on rating) Stockfish still wins with black.</p>
  <p>If Magnus Carlsen can't manage a draw with white against the best computer, could it be that the problem is that there is something fundamental about chess that humans do not yet know? The draw death might be permanent or maybe some human genius, perhaps assisted (maybe almost certainly assisted) by a special chess coach AI will discover a way to play chess much better than humans currently do.</p>
  <p>I would guess some very bright grandmasters are trying to analyze the games of the best programs, and maybe already some ideas have been overturned.</p>
  <p>For example, have computers given us a more nuanced understanding of the value of two bishops or the relative value of pieces? It seems pretty plausible (I have been away from chess for many years) that the piece value of 9 for a queen has changed -- it was just a guess anyway, wasn't it?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-19T11:43:48.343Z
Comments.Text: I challenge the terms of your question. You ask whether or not certain fears are invalidated. But you assume such fears exist, & that what might or might not invalidate them is computer strength. Chess is a game for people to play. The important question is whether people who want to play chess think it's too easy. It doesn't matter if AlphaZero finds out how to play every position perfectly; so long as there are people who want to play, don't find it too easy, have more to learn, & have the capacity to improve, chess is not too easy.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-19T19:33:43.407Z
Comments.Text: I think people overestimate the impact computers have on non-elite players
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-20T10:25:35.197Z
Comments.Text: I don't get the connection you see between "too easy" and "draw death". Chess is *not* "drawish" because it's too easy. Connect four 4 is pretty easy, but the first player can force a win. Chess between two Stockfishes is more complex than between humans, yet it will almost exclusively lead to draws. And of course, if your "human genius" somehow discovers a better way to play chess, GM games will *still* be mostly draws (everyone will adopt the new way quickly, keeping the scales balanced).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Tags: <draw><computer-chess>
Title: Does the strength of computers invalidate fears that chess is "too easy", etc.?
ThreadText: # Does the strength of computers invalidate fears that chess is "too easy", etc.?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-19)
  
  Many years ago, I think it was Capablanca who said chess was too easy and I think also, long before computers could play a decent, the "draw death" of chess was discussed.
  
  But can't Stockfish beat any human? Even if the world champ humans has white and sets out to draw, I believe (based on rating) Stockfish still wins with black.
  
  If Magnus Carlsen can't manage a draw with white against the best computer, could it be that the problem is that there is something fundamental about chess that humans do not yet know? The draw death might be permanent or maybe some human genius, perhaps assisted (maybe almost certainly assisted) by a special chess coach AI will discover a way to play chess much better than humans currently do.
  
  I would guess some very bright grandmasters are trying to analyze the games of the best programs, and maybe already some ideas have been overturned.
  
  For example, have computers given us a more nuanced understanding of the value of two bishops or the relative value of pieces? It seems pretty plausible (I have been away from chess for many years) that the piece value of 9 for a queen has changed -- it was just a guess anyway, wasn't it?
  
  **Tags:** draw, computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I challenge the terms of your question. You ask whether or not certain fears are invalidated. But you assume such fears exist, & that what might or might not invalidate them is computer strength. Chess is a game for people to play. The important question is whether people who want to play chess think it's too easy. It doesn't matter if AlphaZero finds out how to play every position perfectly; so long as there are people who want to play, don't find it too easy, have more to learn, & have the capacity to improve, chess is not too easy.  
  > **username_2**: I think people overestimate the impact computers have on non-elite players  
  > **username_3**: I don't get the connection you see between "too easy" and "draw death". Chess is *not* "drawish" because it's too easy. Connect four 4 is pretty easy, but the first player can force a win. Chess between two Stockfishes is more complex than between humans, yet it will almost exclusively lead to draws. And of course, if your "human genius" somehow discovers a better way to play chess, GM games will *still* be mostly draws (everyone will adopt the new way quickly, keeping the scales balanced).  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2021-12-19. Score: 5
  
  Define "understand" ;-)
  
  Humans are notorious information compressors. Just take a very simple chess example: KR/K. Countless times, as a trainer, I explained two methods to mate: boxing in and check while in opposition. Both are simple enough to be learned by a total beginner. Add a few rules of thumb to cover special cases (stalemate and so) and yes, they "understood" KR/K.
  
  But now take a tablebase of KR/K. The shortest mate usually is a combination of both methods. No shortcuts! Thus, it would be quite tough for a human to (quite pointlessly) learn this because it is just a big heap of information that won't fit into working memory. And when it comes to, say, KRN/KNN, we're way over our limits.
  
  My verdict thus is that the statements "chess is easy" and "chess is hard" are not mutually exclusive (remember the Indian saying that a gnat can bathe in it and an elephant drown?) but merely ill-defined by using "chess" pars pro toto:
  Yes, chess is easy enough that a super grandmaster can hold a draw 99.9% of the time against a colleague without risk if inclined so, but chess is hard enough that the computer will clobber the super grandmaster. Context matters!
  
  Further sidenotes:
  
  * The style of, say, Alpha Zero is not ineffable per se, and in fact, the book "Game Changer" exactly tries to explain it in human terms.
  * "Q=9P" is "nowhere" coded in Alpha Zero. A neural net doesn't work this way, there is no "master neuron" to fiddle with and set the connection strengths to the equivalent of 8P! And I daresay it's even impossible to find out, because you merely can enter positions Q+X vs. 9P+X one by one and ask Alpha Zero to assign them, and as each position will have additional individual properties, you can't really isolate the material aspect.
  
  
  ---
  
  