Cornfed wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:34 pm Put up your engines aside and enjoy the struggle that is actual chess.
Oh come on! You can't say this and then mention 3/0 and 1/0 "chess"... What requires "chess" to be chess starts at 10/0 at the minimum. Some people can start chess at 5/0 and their ratings will start with 2, but they're rare, and most people damage their brains by playing too fast chess, their minds get used to playing too fast and in 10/0 they'll barely use half their clock and the only way to reverse the damage is to stop blitz and bullet entirely and adapt their brains to think for a longer time instead of relying 100% in intuition.
To "enjoy the struggle of chess" people can't play in the time controls you propose
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
While this might be useless in the sea of variations, something that can be done is expanding Dann's analysis of depth 66's horizon. When you do this in lost positions, the score is higher than at the root. When you do this on drawn positions, the score tends towards 0.
[d]2kr1b1r/1ppq1p2/p3b1np/3pP1p1/3P4/7P/PPPQNPPB/1K1R1B1R w - -
Here 15.Bg3 was analyzed to relative depth 38. While it's very rare, if all these moves hold to depth 68, then if I analyze it to depth 40, I'll be showing how this line would have continued at that depth, in a much shorter time. If it doesn't hold, we get to see which side needs to improve their play.
Qc3 is liked until depth 30, then the engine has a fight over Bg3 and Nc1, but Nc1 wins in the end:
mclane wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:49 pm
What do you mean with "you analyzed it up to depth xy"
??
You let stockfish compute about it.
But stockfish is pruning away things.
It's not god himself.
It's called "relative depth". For this line this depth was achieved. For other deviations from this line (because they were pruned), this depth wasn't achieved.
It is helpful to know about these depths for other people that want to take a look, so they no longer waste time re-analyzing the same root position to any depth less than this (say, anybody jumping to the root and leaving the engine analyzing the position to depth 65 would be wasting their time as we already have data from depth 66, but anybody focusing their analysis in a move we have missing *to any depth* would not waste their time as we don't have public analysis of that line.)
It's about not reinventing the wheel every time. Of course anybody can beat us to the punch if Stockfish and Leela are not the best on the Englund, and they could easily provide a better line by an engine that understands it better, *at any depth*.
Cornfed wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:34 pm Put up your engines aside and enjoy the struggle that is actual chess.
Oh come on! You can't say this and then mention 3/0 and 1/0 "chess"... What requires "chess" to be chess starts at 10/0 at the minimum. Some people can start chess at 5/0 and their ratings will start with 2, but they're rare, and most people damage their brains by playing too fast chess, their minds get used to playing too fast and in 10/0 they'll barely use half their clock and the only way to reverse the damage is to stop blitz and bullet entirely and adapt their brains to think for a longer time instead of relying 100% in intuition.
To "enjoy the struggle of chess" people can't play in the time controls you propose
Bullet is all adrenaline and no chess.
Is entirely possible to both be able to play instantly and intuitively, and to also know how to OTB analyse. Strong players do both.
Yeah, but strongly? I checked Hikaru Nakamura's bullet games, they showcased very poor chess, whatever intuition they had couldn't be seen. Of course he was sweeping anybody that came his way, but that's only because their bullet moves were even worse, and for the times where they got a winning position against Nakamura, he was able to still beat them on the clock with premove tricks, techniques unrelated to "chess".
The level of top humans 3 0 chess is also nothing to call home about, it's common to see big blunders played that aren't punished because neither player noticed some tactic. "Intuition" seems to only help in reaching positions where the opponent can't find the right moves with the time available, not to actually play good chess that requires time.
The only way to develop good OTB analysis skills is to play slow chess (and 10 0 isn't much to ask for.) I actually recommend people to find their level by getting into some time control x 0, and just ignore their clocks (you hide them while the game is going.) If you flag on time then you need to increase x. If you're left with much time on the clock, you reduce x. Once the level has been found, the player will try to raise x (so games aren't lost on time) and then spend as much of their available time of their game without looking at the clocks. This will teach them how to improve their analysis skills, unlike just playing slower time controls but not using the extra time because they rely on intuition.
Cornfed wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:34 pm Put up your engines aside and enjoy the struggle that is actual chess.
Oh come on! You can't say this and then mention 3/0 and 1/0 "chess"... What requires "chess" to be chess starts at 10/0 at the minimum. Some people can start chess at 5/0 and their ratings will start with 2, but they're rare, and most people damage their brains by playing too fast chess, their minds get used to playing too fast and in 10/0 they'll barely use half their clock and the only way to reverse the damage is to stop blitz and bullet entirely and adapt their brains to think for a longer time instead of relying 100% in intuition.
To "enjoy the struggle of chess" people can't play in the time controls you propose
Bullet is all adrenaline and no chess.
As someone correctly says: GOOD players can do both...and usually do.
Beyond that, you conflate things...2+2 and get 5. I don't play the crap stuff in OTB tourneys or anything less than 5/0 online. NEVER said or implied that I did...
I play fast (usually 3/0 or 3/1) simply to challenge and test my intuition and 'feel' for positions. No one 'seriously calculates' at very fast time controls. Do yourself a favor and enjoy the struggle that is chess in various time controls...or you can fret over if something is or isn't playable with 'perfect play, if that floats your boat. Your choice.
