Anti-Computer Strategies

In Silman's recent article on pros and cons of corresspondence chess, one of the cons mentioned is using chess engines. If you play correspondence chess, can you share any anti-computer strategies that you may employ? Thank you in advance.

You have to have strong strategic understanding (some sort of long range evaluation out of reach of a computer's pure calculation), great technique to see the evaluation though, and in the end also strong tactics to avoid pitfalls.

Things like keeping the game closed, structural advantages (pawns) and endgames are usually themes.  But in the end you have to be a strong player in the first place to put up a fight against a strong computer.  Luckily it's no big deal here for 99% of us as Fezzik said.

At one time Roman Dzindzichashvili had a page of some specific anti computer strategies, but now I can't find it.  If you're facing modern engines on fast hardware though there's really not a lot you can do unassisted.

I play a small number of games, under longer time controls, so that I have time to analyze deeply. I play a set of openings that I know very well, so it's not easy for me to blow myself up with blunders or positional errors.

Only once did I strongly suspect I was up against a computer. I played the same player again after that, and won after he entered an inferior opening (declined the Goring by opting for a weak Ponziani line) and then worsened it by taking a tainted pawn. So then I'm thinking "not a computer", but he continued playing after forced loss of his Q and having no compensation. You might say that's common for chess.com, but he was rated about 2100 and I don't think it's common at higher ratings.

Here's the second game. Was Black a computer, or not?

By the way, the player has since been kicked off chess.com for 'cheating'.

Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match with two anticomputer strategies.  One, by complicating the position, which forces it to calculate more and slow down since they cannot discriminate which calculations are a waste of time and which are not;  and two, offering up gambit pawns, knowing full well that the computer, which by nature is materialistic, would take them.  It worked.  However, the second match did not go so well for him, and that was in the 90s. 

Here's an anti-computer strategy : PLAY CHESS960!

Yes ... I much prefer Extinction though, it preserves more of the game's flavour.

Anti computer strategy is getting much harder with stronger chess engines and processors.

A computer in the endgame has all the advantages, you will lose the endgame if the computer has a possible win, a table base will destroy any grandmaster. With 8 or less pieces on the board, a computer has already solved chess you are at an extreme disadvantage.

A computer probably has a huge advantage in the opening as well, they have many opening books available to them in a split second with in depth lines and knowledge of many traps, odds are you will not be beating a computer in the opening either, and if you do the next generation will have adapted to that opening making it fruitless for you. If deep blue beat Kasparov in an opening 14 years ago, what do you think anyones chances are against a top machine today?

ok so now the Endgame, and Opening are very much dominated by a computer you can cross those two paths to victory off your list you are left with the middle game as your only path to victory.

First off you need to be strong enough at openings to go toe to toe with the computer, if you can not do this you will lose.

Second off you must win or draw in the middle game, having a closed position is much more favorable against a computer the more open the lines are the more dangerous the position is for a human against a machine you want a knife fight in a phone booth, out in the open you will get sniped from a mile away by a computers raw processing power.

In time computers will become impossible for humans to beat at chess, but for now your only hope is a middle game victory, and by middle game victory this means converting the middle game to a winning end game as well.

Out of the 200 or so CC games I've played on chess.com in the last half a year or so, there have only been a handful of times (less than 5 games total) that I suspected computer use.

If you're rated less than 2300 or so, I wouldn't worry about it. What's the point of worrying about something that happens once every 40 games or so?

Using an anti-computer strategy is silly, because that will make you a worse player against a person, when presumably you value improving your chess against people far more than you do against computers.

I think Silman totally overestimated the amount of computer use. I'm not unusual in thinking that it has only very rarely happened in my games.

If your play is good how would using an "Anti computer strategy" Make you worse off against a person? For the most part computers are tougher at chess than humans.

By this logic using armor piercing bullets will make your guns ineffective against those without bullet proof vests.

I'm not sure if any of this still works, but here is it anyway:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/05/stonewall-attack.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brains_in_Bahrain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-computer_tactics_%28gaming%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches

I cringe when anyone claims that " computers have solved chess" , really !  If this were true the beasts would NEVER lose , even against one another ! Look at the last round game in Wijk ann Zee between Anand and the Russian champion. The final position was a fortress that cant be broken yet the engines were evaluating the position as easily winning for Anand...... This means they are not perfect yet !  It seems they dont understand fortresses for example... yet. Put the final position of the game on your engine(s) and see what evaluations it gives. 

I thought of replying that they will solve chess as soon as Duke Nukem Forever hits the stores. Then I rechecked the situation and deleted the text.

I was monitoring one of the 'analyis rooms' here during a recent international tourney, and was treated to patzer after patzer saying (with absolute conviction) things like "Rybka gives -1.07 ... it's over for White". My comment at the time was "That means Rybka doesn't know yet who should win." Naturally, I was flamed.

The way humans and computers play is fundamentally different.  Computers don't really "play" at least in the way we think of the term.  Like Fezzik said it would be like doing very specific preparation for a single opponent and then expecting the usefulness of that preparation to now extend to all opponents.

Computers remain useful tools at digging up forcing variations, but their evaluations and moves where forcing variations are lacking are always taken with a grain of salt as in Reb's example.  If you're no good at using the tool, it won't be nearly as useful to you (as pathfinder says about being flamed by patzers).  It's not accurate to think of them as "playing chess like a human, but stronger."

Thank you to all of you for sharing your knowledge.

Although I have faith in human, sometimes, I always get this eerier feeling if my opponent is a blackbox. With stronger engine nowaday, I'm still looking at ways to avoid being clobber. I still use this old traditional advice but want to find out if there any new updates..

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/honor.htm

With the latest cheating scandal, I am still a believe in the goodness of mankind. But why do people use computer? What is there to gain?

Again, thank you to all for sharing your opinion and advice.

The person who employs a chess engine to decide what moves to make will never become a good chess player. If I suspect someone of using an engine I just feel sorry for him.

Simple ... play as white for the first 15 to 20 moves, then switch sides ... if the computer makes a comeback then switch sides again.

You assume chess is never lost once one has solved the game. You cannot know this ;)