How to Beat Computers at Chess

           Hopefully you realize that computers don't actually play chess. That is computers can't think and can't do strategy at all . . . they are sensational where brute-force calculation based upon brute-force evaluation is the key determinant.  They play terrible positional chess in general.

           The inspiration for this opening thread on Computer Chess comes from another forum topic which actually stands at #1 on the "hot topics" list:   "Can Black Win" by "Equiv."  On the 11th or 12th page someone quoted a chess engine called Stockfish as the ultimate answer to the subject discussed . . . and, of course, ignored every lesson taught by the play; and the discussion on the forum topic.  Our faith in chess computers is often misplaced.

             Background Page 1:  everyone except me thought that the game (endgame actually) was a win for Black -- and the great, great consensus was that Black wins easily.  In particular the little quote in red immediately below absolutely seemed to have infuriated the people who semi-cursed me over the next 12 pages (as I proved my conclusion in a "battle" with a player rated about 200+ points higher than me).  I said,

            The POSITION must be evaluated as a "likely drawn game." The three (3) doubled and isolated Black Kingside pawns are probably NOT worth anything like the value of three pawns abreast. Let's value them at 1.5 points only. If that's true, White with the Knight and his six beautiful pawns holds an ultra-slim 14 to 13.5 point positional/material edge. The key word is the capitalized word POSITION above. Materially Black holds the traditional edge when we "count up" the bodies along the side of the chess board . . . but except for his slight lead in development, POSITIONALLY Black's prospects SUCK.

            I concluded that White should win, Black would have all the play (early) and a draw was likely unless Black chooses to over-reach and allow White to win because of Black's horrible positional MINUSES.  I also interpreted applicable ideas from two books (Hans Kmoch's "Pawn Power" and another book "Point-Count Chess") and mentioned a similar book Bruce Pandolfini's "The Weapons of Chess."  After unending grief from the kibitzers during the "game," the draw was secured after 15 moves of combat.  By page 12 of the topic I'd discovered 6-7 new truths about the position; and a far quicker way to secure the draw.  Meanwhile the three black crippled Kingside pawns played no role and indeed no role was possible for them.  The Consensus was that "a pawn is a pawn is a pawn, even if doubled, even if isolated" and that B vs. N in endgames with Pawns on both sides of the board was virtually always a win, easy win, for the side with the Bishop.

            So how do you beat computers at chess?  It's probably very difficult when all is said and done.  However, the main strategy is this:  play strategic (positionally) as much as possible.  When in doubt, for example, trade queens early; get into early endgame positions; give the computer bad pawns and bad Bishops and avoid them in your play.  Then keep from getting tactically whipped in the resultant usually simpler battles.  In the Can Black Win forum topic I played the game so that the value of the three Black Kingside pawns nominally worth 3 points would be 1.5 point.  In actual play their value proved to be ZERO . . . BUT the computer chess engine Stockfish on its 3rd move had the White player move 3. g3 . . . a move that would have allowed Black to cure every single one of his three crippled pawns.  Worse, that idea was given credence because a computer suggested it.  It's like you see 1. e4 make f6 and see 2. d4 and make g5  . . . call it "positional suicide by chess computer!"

           A book I recently paid one penny for (+$3.99 shipping) online called "Chess:  A Psychiatrist Matches Wits with Fritz" by Ernest F. Pecci, M.D. is really kind of stupid, but it talks about using an opening such as the Colle, the Stonewall, etc. which is based on a multiple-move system is the most likely path to victory agains truly tough computers.  The book analyzes eight Stonewall opening games and later on goes into other more popular openings with Black or White and talks interestingly and in some place, I believe, quite provocatively about the subject.  Any ideas from you folks?  Any books you'd recommend?  I'd recommend you read the first and then pages 11-12 of the "Can Black Win" forum.  Good luck, good chess, live long and stay ornery.

                By the way, despite having proven myself a better endgame player than about 20 other humans and the Stockfish chess engine during the "Can Black Win" forum -- I'm still getting a bunch of naysayers (who won't play it out, of course) and nasty comments so I left them with this and presumably will be done with the matter by tomorrow this time:

                In the face of a lack of players with the intellect and/or courage to face me in a skittles battle on the position involved . . . I have better things to do with my time. So unless I get a challenger in the next 24 hours (8 pm Rocky Mountain Daylight Time Friday September 5, 2014), I will declare this position drawn for White (possible win if Black seek to over-reach) as the FINAL TRUTH in all the Universe AMEN!!!    :     ). Since the moves I got immediate violent censure for were Nb3 and Re1 and the trade of Rooks. That is the position I will evaluate via skittles for $100 donated to our favorite charities. 'Remember since I'm an old man who once went 24 years without playing, only 2000 ratings and below allowed (I'm listed about 1635). Nuff said!

So, anyone can beat chess engines if they recognize their patterns...

          NOT HARDLY Jion_Wansu, not hardly.  I'm just outlining the strategy . . . when eating soup, "there's many a drip twixt cup and lip" . . . that must be attempted for best results in the long-term.  

          Chess is said to be "90% tactics.  All the mistakes are waiting to be made on the board and that's the strenth of the computers in playing chess . . . their brute force capability and speed make them very difficult to beat because 1) they make very few short-term MATERIAL mistakes and 2) they miss very few opportunites to punish our short-term MATERIAL errors.  And all things equal, it is material that most often dictates the game results. They are also strong enough to occasionally 3) initiate threats, attacks, etc. which can checkmate us when we really screw-up. And checkmate and playing for endgame advantages are the epitome of strategic play.

          So . . . it is not enough to employ a winning strategy, you must NOT make mistakes in executing it. The only way to sensibly attempt to beat a computer competitive with your abilities or more than competitive with your abilities is to employ a strategic approach.  What do I mean by "strategic?"  Strategy is attention placed primarily upon long-term considerations  . . . for instance in a certain position setting up the factors that might deprive your opponent of moves (domination) and thus creating a 1) winning endgame or 2) a checkmate or 3) tactical coup opportunity.  

         The tactics themselves are also (when compared to blindly pushing pieces and pawns around with little thought to position or material) the way to punish 1) blunders or 2) exploit positional weaknesses of your opponent and thus become a "comparative long-term strategy" themselves.  What does that mean?  

         Imagine you move your Queen to a certain square on the same diagonal as your Knight . . . the Queen initiates a double-attack that requires your opponent to protect both attacked pieces by moving his defensively vital Knight away from the Kingside.  You then (after he moves his Knight away) announce a checkmate in six moves by means of a smothered mate.  The tactics you employed become "one big move" which amounts to either A) a two-move gain of material or B) a seven-move smothered mate depending upon your opponent's response to the original Queen sortie.  That is the beauty and the struggle of chess in a nutshell.

          Good luck!