In the Age of AI: Play like a Human + RIP FM Mark Duckworth
Hey Impressive Chessers!
In this blog we are going to time travel back to the prehistoric ages of the early 2000s. So as some of you know I’ve been teaching/coaching chess for almost a quarter century! I started teaching chess in 2001, a few hours a week, as my high school job. By the way, if you are a new or aspiring chess coach, rest assured I was a terrible coach for at least the first 3 years. It wasn’t all my fault as I was only a few years older than the oldest kids in my classes! I don’t know how they let me teach as early as I did. To be honest, I don’t even know if it was legal, but here we are.
Chess Computers in the Prehistoric Days (early 2000s)
Click --> Here to go straight to Puzzle #1
Besides showing off my coaching experience (read: aging myself) I really did have a point. The point is that once I got a little older and better at teaching it was 2004, and computers were really good at chess but you could definitely disagree with them and actually occasionally show them up. For example, in the diagrammed position below, computers would proudly spit out that Black was winning due to their material advantage that they are about to receive.
Puzzle #1: What would you play to show those early 2000 computers who was boss?
Chess Computers in 2025
Fast forward to 2025 and we certainly don’t have that problem with computers. They can instantly spit out a move like 20. Bf6!! But now the problem is that computers are almost too good! Because computers are almost always right, we usually can’t disagree with the move that they spit out. But we can disagree about the practicality of the move they spit out versus a simpler move that also wins. For example, what move would you play in the diagrammed puzzle below?
Puzzle #2: *Hint* the “answer” may not be the top computer choice
The Return of "Dave"
In a previous blog: Know the Situation I talked about a student named "Dave". Dave's problem was that he would get winning positions but still wanted to win with an insane queen sac and preferably a smothered mate. I agree that would be awesome, but the reason it's awesome is that it's not a common occurrence. Most games, especially below the master level should end in an endgame such as:
Don't be like "Dave"... Or Me in My Game Against FM Duckworth
Alright impressive chessers we're going to go over a game that I'm really not proud about for a couple reasons.
The game that we are about to go over, was played in a tournament that could've netted me an IM norm if I achieved a 5/9 score. The night before this game, I played against future GM Sam Sevian (he was a NM at the time of the game), and netted a win! (see the ending below)
Puzzle #4: What is the "human" move to conclude this game?
The above game brought my score up to 3/7, which normally isn't great, but my last round opponent was having a tough go at it, I believe they had 0.5/7, and I had already played all of the IMs in the tournament. If I could win, with white against FM Duckworth, I would have a huge chance to score an IM norm! The only problem? Guess who also had 3/7 and needed back to back victories to score an IM norm? You guessed it, my opponent: FM Mark Duckworth
The Game
At the conclusion of this game, I quickly shook hands with my opponent, aggressively signed the scoresheets and then embarrassingly stormed off without saying a word. Luckily, I had the wherewithal to come back after about 30 seconds. I apologized to FM Duckworth and we had a proper post-mortem.
It's true that I didn't play the best moves, but what I realized from that post-mortem was more important: I wasn’t being practical. I was trying to play chess like a computer instead of the human that I am.
Humans play better when they can make the game simple, or at least, simpler to themselves. Computers don’t care how complex a position is because they calculate all consequences clearly. We don’t. Can you find the human move that I missed on move 28?
Remembering FM Mark Duckworth
On April 10th, 2025 we sadly lost a SoCal legend: FM Mark Duckworth. I knew Mark from the game above and a few others, but mostly from his epic blitz skills. Mark would take on all comers at the chess park by Santa Monica Pier.
It was rumored that Mark would give GMs time odds of one minute to five and he would hold his own. All the while playing avant-garde openings such as The Grob and Owen’s Defense.
I also had the pleasure of playing blitz with him, one last time, on April 9th. I had no idea that he would pass away just some 12 hours later. It was clear that Mark loved to play blitz and he was strong!
SoCal has truly lost an irreplaceable legend.
A Typical Insane Game of Mark's
Conclusion
As chess engines and AI continue to evolve, the temptation is stronger than ever to play like a machine: calculating, unerring, perfect. But we are not machines. We are humans, playing against other humans, and trying to navigate the beautiful mess that is human chess.
We should strive for accuracy, yes, but also for clarity. A clean win in an endgame is just as admirable (and often more reliable) than a flashy queen sacrifice that may or may not work. Learn from the engines, sure but play for yourself.
And as for FM Duckworth, he was someone who embraced his human-ness on the board. He didn't chase perfection. He chased joy, creativity, and chaos. If you're going to play chess in the age of AI, let that be your model.
RIP FM Mark Duckworth. You reminded us that blitz should be fun, the Grob is not dead, and that there’s always room for wildness in a world dominated by engines.
Stay impressive!
NM Craig C.
linktr.ee/ChessToImpress
