Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nick1812216 t1_irnb888 wrote

Reply to comment by MindSwipe in [OC] Percent of human moves matching computer recommended moves in top chess tournaments by Evidently_21

Well! There are two distinct periods of chess theory. There is romantic chess, which is focused on dramatic sacrifices to gain advantageous positions. It’s a very exciting form of chess play prevalent in the 19th century. Then there is hypermodern chess, which is more focused on material (material meaning pawns, rooks, knights, etc…), and it begins in the 20th century. Each piece has a numeric value representative of its worth. Hypermodern materialistic chess is focused on maximizing material, so there are no dramatic sacrifices or grandiose positional moves. (Romantic chess/sacrifices/positional play is a very human form of chess. Hypermodern/material is a very computerized form of chess) We see this dip around 1880-1900 as this would have been the tail end of the romantic period of chess, when the prevailing form of chess was diametrically opposite to how computers play chess.

Im so glad you asked this question. I love history and chess

34

chazwomaq t1_iro2t9b wrote

>Hypermodern materialistic chess is focused on maximizing material, so there are no dramatic sacrifices or grandiose positional moves. (Romantic chess/sacrifices/positional play is a very human form of chess. Hypermodern/material is a very computerized form of chess)

This is muddled. Modern chess, and engine chess still has sacrifices. It's just that the romantic era was characterised by unsound sacrifices, which people would still make because opponents would invariably take the material on offer. You can find many fascinating sacrifices in recent games featuring top engines like leela.

Early engines were great at tactics (winning material) and less good at positions. But modern engines are much better at positional chess, albeit with some weakspots. Many initially incomprehensible moves can only be understood much later in a game when they reveal a subtle positional advantage.

The rough eras of chess go like this:

romantic - unsound sacrifices which are accepted.

modern (late 19th / early 20th century) - focused on position rather than (just) material. Effectively killed the romantic era because it is superior.

hypermodern (post WW1) - broadened modern ideas to include indirect control and other ideas like overprotection, outposts etc. It is also a positional form of chess.

9

MindSwipe t1_irnstjx wrote

Interesting, I think that was said in a video I saw somewhere, but why is did the hypermodern style decline in popularity in the late 19th century? Did a lot of people just go "fuck this, I want heroic battles in chess and none of this fancy number stuff" or is there a deeper reason behind it?

2

nick1812216 t1_irnwcqr wrote

I don’t think that it existed prior to the 20th century. I think it’s tied into the end of the preindustrial world and the industrialization/technological revolution of the 19th/20th/21st centuries. It is a small manifestation of a much larger shift in western culture. Think of it like the transition from artisanal cottage industry to mass production factories. You transition from working when you want on handmade pieces to a factory environment that’s governed by clocks and timetables and train schedules and punch cards and quarterly reports and currency exchange rates. If the goal is to bring the maximum benefit to the most people for the lowest cost, unequivocally the industrialized approach to production is far superior, but there is a sort of sentimental nostalgic value to the way things were done before, you know? And it is the same with chess. Unequivocally, if you want to win, materialistic/hypermodern chess is superior to romantic chess. Sorry, this was a little longwinded, but I think it’s an interesting subject.

1